Subject: Re: RFC about "Object Oriented Programming in Common Lisp" From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 2000/06/15 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Michael Abd-El-Malek <email@example.com> | Coming from a C++/Java background, I'm deeply routed in OOP | techniques (for better or for worse?!), so I've already played with | CLOS. However, it seemed to me that doing things in CLOS is | sometimes fundamentally different from the way you would do things | in C++. OOP techniques are generally good, when applied within reason. C++ is a bad instantiation of them and encourages bad use of OOP techniques. CLOS is a good instantiation of them and discourages bad use of OOP techniques. This leads to some cultural clashes. | On the subject, another good question would be: should I try to | program in Common Lisp using OOP techniques, or should I stick to | the more traditional functional programming paradigm of Lisp? What | has worked for you guys?! If you can shed the C++ heritage and ignore the urge to let classes _own_ methods, as well as ignore the urge to control _ownership_ of data, you'll have no problems. Since more than half of C++'s stupid implementation of OOP is about ownership control, this may be hard. #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.