Darren New escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>>   In my little experience, trying to use a programming paradigm (eg. OOP)
>> with a language which has no specific support for that paradigm (eg.
>> traditional lisp or scheme, or C) only creates a ton of kludges.
> 
> Actually, LISP has excellent support for OO. It has closures (which are 
> objects without the types, not unlike javascript objects) and it has 
> macros that let you Do The Right Thing with the syntax and integrate it 
> cleanly into the language. It's not going to look like Java/C++/C#/etc 
> classes, but I'd disagree it's a kludge.

More than that, Common Lisp has CLOS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System

> I don't remember scheme enough to know how clean it is, and I'll agree 
> with you on the C part. :-)  And that's not to say there aren't things 
> that would be very difficult to do in LISP without native support built 
> into the language (like some forms of control flow, for example).

Are you kidding?  One of the main strenghts of Lisp is its macro system. 
  Not dumb C preprocessing, a metaprogramming features which allows you 
to create nice new syntax for any control flow you want.

See:
http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html

Scheme itself lives up to its original goal as a minimalist and 
incredibly flexible and powerful language.  See for instance an 
implementation of a full-fledged, purely functional object-system:
http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/index.html#pure-oo

This is done purely with functions and will look awkward for Warp in the 
way they are called, but thing is:  one layer of macros later and it 
looks just as integrated into the language as if OO was always there.

Post a reply to this message