From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: O-O Programming: The CLOS Perspective - looking for info on this book
Date: 1999/01/23
Message-ID: <3126104474495431@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 436055394
References: <36a9be35.60399@news.mclink.it>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* amoroso@mclink.it (Paolo Amoroso)
| I would appreciate any kind of info about this book: pointers to reviews,
| titles of chapters/contributions, opinions, etc.  This would help me
| decide whether it's interesting enough to justify its purchase despite a
| possibly expensive price quote (but if the price is affordable, I'll
| probably buy the book anyway).

  this is opinion.  I found the book quite dated and the treatment of C++
  was unfair even at the time it was printed.  I remember reading this book
  when I was beginning to get _real_ tired of C++ near the end of 1993, and
  I was often puzzled by the comparisons with C++ where there were a number
  of complex problems that C++ could have solved, but the authors didn't
  see.  I that was very annoying to me, and I thought it weakened the case
  for CLOS.  yet, here I am, just having completed a validator for the type
  of the constructor arguments that interrogates the class definition via
  the MOP, and it's _completely_ generic.  such validation is trivial for
  static _code_ in C++, but if you read the arguments from a potentially
  hostile network client, you'd have to write a lot more code and duplicate
  the type information in C++.  stuff like that should have been part of
  the comparisons, but aren't.

#:Erik
-- 
  SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
  intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.