[munich-lisp] Next Munich Lispers Meeting

[Pascal Costanza]

Thanks for putting me in cc, but since I didn't see the beginning of  
the discussion, I cannot comment on it that well... ;)

Pascal

On 10 Dec 2008, at 01:12, Jim Newton wrote:

> On Thursday 04 December 2008 21:46:37 Andreas Hauser wrote:
>> jimka wrote @ Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:43:35 +0100:
>>>    * A very opinionated and probably objectionable view of
>>>              CLOS (the way I think it should be).
>>
>> A CLOS discussion would be nice to have. I remember some other people
>> mentioning they've never come around to dive into it. I'm a bit  
>> uncertain
>> about your stance (some native speaker connotaions might have been  
>> lost),
>> are you pro or con CLOS? Can someone else defend the other position?
>>
>
> Yes, i'm basically Pro-clos.  However, i do no know a lot about  
> theoretically
> sound object models, and cannot answer questions about CLOS in that
> regard.   I look at CLOS as a tool box of lots of capabilities
> that just very often come in extremely handy.  There are, however,  
> some
> design decisions which went into its original design (usually for
> performance reasons) which  I think are unfortunate and others which
> I think are obtuse.
>
> One thing that I think is interesting about CLOS is its ability to  
> do what I
> call Specialization Oriented Programming.  I.e., using CLOS not for
> its object model (where classes represent state laden objects with  
> similar
> characteristics), but rather using the method dispatch protocol for  
> control
> flow purposes.  In this approach objects of a class do not represent
> entities in any describable sense, but rather they act as policies to
> control which methods are applicable and in which order they
> are evaluated.
>
> I suspect many people will disagree with my opinion.
>
> I look forward to the discussion
> -jim

-- 
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium