Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful

[Christopher Allan Webber]

David Kastrup writes:

> Arne Babenhauserheide <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Marko Rauhamaa <address@hidden> writes:
>>> I have typed this message in emacs.
>>
>> Same for me, but getting people to use Emacs is harder. It might not
>> *be* that complicated, but it *feels* different.
>>
>>> In my opinion one of the worst problems with Scheme is the Schemers:
>>> Scheme lovers are often far too enthusiastic with defining new, esoteric
>>> syntax instead of solving practical problems.
>>>
>>> Then, there's GOOPS, which in my opinion is simply an unnatural way to
>>> go about object-oriented programming. It does violence both to ordinary
>>> OO way of thinking and classic Lisp idioms.
>>
>> GOOPS works pretty well for me where I use it (for dispatch by
>> type). Could you clarify your criticism: Do you think it is bad or is it
>> just different?
>
> My main beef with GOOPS is that it does not help with narrowing down on
> a solution but rather with extending the problem space.  It is too
> generic to provide guidance and a cohesive framework: if two different
> people solve problems using GOOPS, the likelihood that those solutions
> can be connected in interface or design better than non-GOOPS solutions
> is slim.

Generic methods help somewhat with this though right?  That's part of
the goal of generic methods even; the portion of SICP where they are
introduced is even about getting two programmers who don't necessarily
get along to get their code to work together.