[plt-scheme] Rationale of the object system?

From: Michael Schuerig (michael at schuerig.de)
Date: Sun Aug 10 13:33:56 EDT 2008

I was introduced to "real" programming through SICP ages ago. Since then 
I've kept an eye on Lisp and Scheme, but never went further than 
reading several books for inspiration (Graham, PAIP, AMOP, Keene, 
Seibel). Meanwhile, my income has been coming from C++, Java, and, for 
the last few years, Ruby. The Ruby community has become a bit crowded 
recently and thus provided a good incentive to move onward. As I wanted 
a dynamic language, the choice was between Common Lisp and Scheme and 
for the time being, I've settled on (PLT) Scheme.

If I have one regret, it is missing out on CLOS and the MOP. By 
comparison, the PLT Scheme object system looks rather conventional (at 
least from a Rubyist's point of view). Certainly the designers of this 
object system knew CLOS and going the other way must have been a 
conscious decision, I take it. If anyone remembers the tale, I'd be 
curious to hear it.

I've found Swindle, of course, and I'm wondering whether it is 
practically possible to use it instead of the "native" object system. 
Or maybe mix the two systems without too much pain.


Michael Schuerig
mailto:michael at schuerig.de

Posted on the users mailing list.