should GOOPS be built-in?

[Michael Vanier <mvanier at bbb dot caltech dot edu>]

Hi all,

Since we're all in soul-searching mode and pondering the future of guile, I
thought it would be a good idea to bring up the issue of whether GOOPS
should be built-in to the core of guile or not.  Personally (and I haven't
thought this through in detail, this is just my gut feeling), I tend to
think that it shouldn't be, but should rather be a module.  This would
allow us to have alternative object systems in addition to GOOPS, which
could also be loadable via modules.  When/if language translators become a
reality in guile, this could be a big win; you could have a "python-OO"
module, a "perl-OO" module, etc. etc. each implementing the particular
flavor of OO that is used by those languages.  This seems to me easier (and
probably more efficient) than having to map the object systems of other
languages onto GOOPS.  It would also be good because my understanding of
GOOPS (and CLOS) is that, although it/they are amazingly flexible, certain
types of information-hiding are not as easily supported in them as in more
traditional object systems.  Also, it would be a publicity coup for guile:
"Other scripting languages have only one object system, but guile has
several -- and you can make new ones!".

What do people think?  I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the
argument.

Mike