http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=7134/sdm0205a/0205a.htm
>We first worked on reflection and metaobject protocols.
>That had almost too much power; people couldn't make effective use of it.
Comments?
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
>
> http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=7134/sdm0205a/0205a.htm
>>We first worked on reflection and metaobject protocols.
>>That had almost too much power; people couldn't make effective use of it.
> Comments?
If he's talking about "people" as embodied in your typical Java or VB
programmer, then, probably, "Yes". If he's talking about Common Lisp
programmers, the answer is obviously "No". Simply because Kiczales went
over to the dark side, seeking the approval of the unwashed masses and
their linguistic messes, does not mean that the revolution he helped
pioneer was wrongly targeted. In the end, it says more about the person
and the politics at today's PARC than it does about the technology.
Why are trying to troll?
faa
"Frank A. Adrian" <·······@ancar.org> writes:
> If he's talking about "people" as embodied in your typical Java or VB
> programmer, then, probably, "Yes". If he's talking about Common Lisp
> programmers, the answer is obviously "No". Simply because Kiczales went
> over to the dark side, seeking the approval of the unwashed masses and
> their linguistic messes, does not mean that the revolution he helped
> pioneer was wrongly targeted. In the end, it says more about the person
> and the politics at today's PARC than it does about the technology.
I agree with the last sentance, but not the dark side bit. AOP gives
Java programmers some extra power they really need. It's a good thing
to give it to them. Sure, they're not getting as much power as
Lispers get from our MOP, but they're getting it in a way that's
packaged appropriately for their language. Java does things with
specialized language extensions, and Lisp gives the programmer the
metaobject tools he or she needs to build up an appropriate
application-specific language.
I certainly don't begrudge Kiczales' attempt to bring an extreemely
powerful set of techniques to the masses, not the least because the
Lisp MOP is essentially done. What work is left to be done isn't
exactly interesting. And besides, AOP hype will probably help to give
Lispers ideas of things to do with the MOP ... I'm pretty sure most
don't use it much.
> Why are trying to troll?
Inertia?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
On 31 Jul 2002 22:30:06 -0700, ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F.
Burdick) wrote:
> exactly interesting. And besides, AOP hype will probably help to give
> Lispers ideas of things to do with the MOP ... I'm pretty sure most
> don't use it much.
Some ideas were given by Kiczales himself in this document:
Open Implementations and MetaObject Protocols
http://www.parc.xerox.com/spl/groups/eca/pubs/papers/Kiczales-TUT95/for-web.pdf
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:59:29 GMT, Thaddeus L Olczyk
<······@interaccess.com> wrote:
> http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=7134/sdm0205a/0205a.htm
> >We first worked on reflection and metaobject protocols.
> >That had almost too much power; people couldn't make effective use of it.
> Comments?
You may solve this problem by dumbing down your language so that it doesn't
have a MOP, or learn how to effectively use the power provided by a MOP.
Common Lisp is intended for an audience willing to do the latter. It is not
a "for dummies" language.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README