Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Actually, let me ask this. Since you seem to be saying that reflection means 
>> that an OO system is a "kludge" because it breaks modularity
> 
>   In fact I said that trying to emulate OOP in a language which has no
> direct support for OOP is a kludge. The only thing I said about reflection
> is that IMO it breaks modularity and thus you lose many of the benefits of
> modular design.

Fair enough. I misremembered precisely what you said, and went with the 
logical implication that seemed to follow.

I'll still disagree that emulating OO with closures in LISP is a kludge, 
because other features of LISP provide direct support for changing the 
language to support other features directly. Once you hit that meta-level of 
support, it's a whole new ball of wax.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message