[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SOS: Simple Object System

From: Jon Wilson
Subject: Re: SOS: Simple Object System
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:25:34 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080724)

You might be interested to read Jonathan Rees' take on OO. It certainly broadens the mind regarding the various implementations and terminology of OO, but is still quite brief. I certainly don't think the Java/C++ model is the last word in OO (but I didn't think that before reeding Rees, either)


Maciek Godek wrote:
Thanks a lot for your all attention and clues.

If it comes to GOOPS, I think it would be best to
specify a well-defined C-level interface (for it would
go with the spirit of guile). This is the one thing.

The other is that in GOOPS a method is something
different than what is commonly known in OOP, because
a class doesn't know its methods (and furthermore,
methods can be created at any time of program execution,
not only during class definition). I'm not saying that
it's good or bad (but it's quite confusing when a few similar
but different notions share one name)

There is also another issue concerning the fact that
methods are available in global namespace -- the
performance of the interpreter is always penalized
by the type lookup (obviously, this doesn't have to
be the case if the code is compiled)

But the most important feature of OOP that is missed
in GOOPS (because of global namespace methods) is the lack
of the clean separation of interface and implementation
in the way it's done in java, C# and the like.

(At least that's what I think)

Thanks again

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]