Re: records

[Chris Bitmead <chris@tech.com.au>]

Jost Boekemeier wrote:

> It may be true that CLOS was a good system 20 years ago but 
> today I don't think that anyone would be comfortable with it.

I'd been using C++, Eiffel and Sather for many years when I stumbled
across CLOS the first time. I was totally impressed. Here was a system
that that provided a super-set of everything these other languages could
do, yet it was more pure, less complicated to understand. Just as Lisp
pre-dates yet is still superior to other languages, I  think CLOS is
just so much better than the systems in other languages.

> I just think that you must choose the right (TM) abstractions 
> first and build the rest of the system on top of them.

It's true that vanilla Scheme needs to have a more extensible system in
this area. It doesn't not because people don't think it needs one but
because not enough agreement has been gained about how to do it, to
write it into the standard. But pretty much all Schemes have implemented
some sort of system here. The issue is standardisation, not disagreement
about the requirement.

> But I do know how CLOS handles OO and I am definitely sure that 
> CLOS would be the wrong way (TM). :)

Care to elaborate? I think CLOS is very much the right way.

-- 
Chris Bitmead
mailto:chris@tech.com.au