From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: RFC about "Object Oriented Programming in Common Lisp" Date: 2000/06/15 Message-ID: <3170048362390635@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 634803721 References: <3948233B.25BAD130@engmail.uwaterloo.ca> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 961060281 28054 195.0.192.66 (15 Jun 2000 09:11:21 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jun 2000 09:11:21 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Michael Abd-El-Malek | 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.