Subject: Re: Namespaces, packages, and methods From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:23:52 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Johann Hibschman <firstname.lastname@example.org> > ... since I come from languages where a class is its own namespace and > such issues never arise ... What you are really saying here is that you have been able to internalize the rules of that language such that you do not cause the issues to arise. Thsoe who have internalized the rules of Common Lisp do not want to call their functions "find" or "position" or "reverse". It is that simple. Different language, different issues. If you are unwilling to learn to work _in_ the language you are now using/learning, but somehow think that you should apply the rules and internalizations of another language to it, you will in fact never become comfortable with _any_ other language than your first. I _suspect_ that the way you learned your first language was not a process of understanding, but a process of copying. This is quite common, but as people go on to learn more languages, they find that memory and patterns of doing things work well for one language (or context) at a time. It is also faster to do things by memorized patterns than to think, so the process of learning a new language has some serious drawbacks. Some languages are even so hard to learn that they force people to use but a subset of their patterns of doing things. Both Perl and C++ come to mind. Learning by doing is sometimes touted as a good way to learn, but I think it is a good way to learn only one thing of a kind. To learn something different, you first have to study what you already know to understand why, not just know how. #:Erik -- Travel is a meat thing.