Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.lisp
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Why Arc isn't especially OO
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Scott McKay  
View profile  
 More options Dec 12 2001, 9:43 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: "Scott McKay" <s...@mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:41:36 GMT
Local: Wed, Dec 12 2001 9:41 am
Subject: Re: Why Arc isn't especially OO
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Espen Vestre" <espen@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote in message

news:w6k7vsbsoy.fsf@wallace.ws.nextra.no...

> tfb+goo...@tfeb.org (Tim Bradshaw) writes:

> > things like method definitions outside classes and so on, I can see
> > that now I'll have to reposition it as `not *actually* OO even though
> > it looks a bit like it'.

> I can see your point - but isn't it a bit sad to surrender to the cultish
> definition of OO? On the other hand - maybe we should start referring
> to CLOS programming as "generic function programming" and refer, in
> footnotes, to "Cult OO" as a "a severely constrained special case of GFP"

I've tried to make the point to Paul that he is setting up a Java-like
strawman of OO, then knocking it down.  So what, big deal.  So
instead of thinking about the useful things OO can provide, he's
throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Here's a suggestion: stop calling what languages such as Common Lisp
and Dylan provide "object-oriented programming".  God forbid, don't
call it "function-oriented programming", because that will get other
people's
knickers in a twist.  Some years ago I suggested "protocol-oriented
programming".


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google