[plt-scheme] Rationale of the object system?

I recommend looking at this paper:

Scheme with Classes Mixins and Traits, from
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~mflatt/publications/index.html

in which the designers discuss many of these questions.

sam th

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Michael Schuerig <michael at schuerig.de> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> --
> Michael Schuerig
> mailto:michael at schuerig.de
> http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>



-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu