Darren New escreveu:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Your definition of object-oriented programming may vary, but in my view
>> data hiding, ie. modularity, is an integral part of OO programming.
> 
> It's pretty easy to fix in LISP if you really care - just make all your 
> local names gensyms.  (If we're still talking about minimal support for 
> lots of paradigms, you could do this with some pretty simple macros, 
> methinks.)
> 
> CLOS doesn't do this, because people who use LISP are usually pretty 
> good programmers.

Yes.  Straight-jackets are generally viewed as a limiting "feature" by 
people who actually know how to program rather than being a low-paid 
drone.  What really amazes me is when very smart programmers actually 
enjoy being in the jacket and ask for more. :P

The best I've ever read on the subject comes from Larry Wall:
"The trend over the last 25 years or so has been to design computer 
languages that enforce a state of paranoia.  You're expected to program 
every module as if it were in a state of siege.  Certainly there are 
some feudal cultures where this is appropriate, but not all cultures are 
like this.  In Perl culture, for instance, you're expected to stay out 
of someone's home because you weren't invited in, not because there are 
bars on the windows."

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=oh8lz4A3sUsC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=larry+wall+house+invited&source=bl&ots=NcO4joArZd&sig=SaR-z_PriPfBbQaxNRAHpBfD_gc&hl=pt-BR&ei=dynBSYutLNuvtwfE0MXSCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

Of course, such attitude would not stand the barbarism going on in 
enterprise by thousands of code monkeys typing a bad rerun of 
Shakespeare, but for one guy or 2 in the know alone working on a private 
project, giving up all bureacratic measures for you not to shoot your 
own foot may lead to an increased productivity with no sensible bug issues.

Post a reply to this message