From: Fernando Mato Mira
Subject: "OOCL" - Good?
Date: 
Message-ID: <37723014.B5F745CF@iname.com>
Anything interesting in "Object Oriented Common Lisp" by Stephen Slade?

Thanks,

From: Will Hartung
Subject: Re: "OOCL" - Good?
Date: 
Message-ID: <f3rc3.3341$0B1.3480@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>
Fernando Mato Mira wrote in message <·················@iname.com>...
>Anything interesting in "Object Oriented Common Lisp" by Stephen Slade?


It's not as good as Grahams "Ansi Common Lisp" as an overall book, but it's
a good reference work I think.

Slade groups his chapters by different concepts that Graham, and tend to
show exhaustive examples of how to use different functions and constructs,
including a lot of the optional parameters. So, as a handy reference, I
think that OOCL is better than ACL. Also, Slade spends a wee bit more time
on some of the more environmental aspects of CL, like debugging and such, as
well a decent overview of CL Packages.

When I first picked up OOCL, I didn't care much for it, but over time it's
grown on me and proven quite handy.

I like the little reference in the back of ACL, but I find that OOCL is a
bit easier to use.

For a "How to program in CL" book, ACL is much better. Much "Lispier". For a
CL programmer, OOCL is handier. Basically, as a user, I'd go to OOCL first,
and then to the HyperSpec.

The HyperSpec is wonderful, but can overwhelm with detail that is not
necessarily important at the time.

Best Regards,

Will Hartung
(······@home.com)
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: "OOCL" - Good?
Date: 
Message-ID: <377646f2.1019255@judy.x-ray.local>
"Will Hartung" <······@home.com> wrote:
>When I first picked up OOCL, I didn't care much for it, but over time it's
>grown on me and proven quite handy.

same to me. it came esp. handy with complicated CLOS cases, 
"how to really do this in CLOS now"
Keene's CLOS book is also wonderful, but I don't use it as reference,
it's an overview and a tutorial.
OOCL can be used as tutorial because it exhaustingly lists all console
prompt interactions on typical problems.

>For a "How to program in CL" book, ACL is much better. Much "Lispier". For a
>CL programmer, OOCL is handier. Basically, as a user, I'd go to OOCL first,
>and then to the HyperSpec.

I prefer the way: 
OOCL->CLtL2->CLHS.
ACL, On Lisp, SICP and Norvig's Paradigms should be in memory. 
CLtL2 has more to say than CLHS and the CLHS strictness is often both
confusing and "over-exact". But definitely the last reference.

--                                         
Reini