I'm well aware (and a big fan of) Philippe's work. In fact, I built this with it: http://objectiveclips.com
Last I checked - ProjectX was using it for its constraints mechanism.
-Todd Blanchard
On Feb 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Roel Wuyts wrote:
Not that all of these languages are object-oriented programming languages. Several features found in functional, logic or constraint languages might be interested to integrate. Note the (really excellent) paper of Philippe Mougin and Stephane Ducasse, that integrated APL-like constructs with Smalltalk collections.
OOPAL: Integrating Array Programming in Object-Oriented Programming , Philippe Mougin, Stéphane Ducasse. OOPSLA 2003 (18th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications). Technical Paper, October 2003, Anaheim, USA.
On 21 Feb 2007, at 21 February/09:55, Todd Blanchard wrote:
On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
I must admit I'm not particularly impressed with that overall assessment.
Then don't vote for me. Sheesh.
Given that AFAICS you've spent the better part of your career hacking Smalltalk rather than working in the mudpits, I'm not giving your view from a distance a lot of weight.
I have years of full time development in these languages - C++ expert, Java expert, Objective C expert. Smalltalk - I'm just pretty good.
Namespaces I've seen the effect of in C++, Java and VW. I think they are a bigger PITA than they are worth. Honestly, I prefer sticking two letter prefixes in front of stuff.
Modules are so overloaded you'll have to define what you mean.
Interfaces - not a fan of the hardwired interface ala Java. I do like informal protocols as implemented in ObjectiveC. Specifically, I like that I can define a protocol, and then ask an object if it conforms to the protocol without having to go back and say "this object will implement this protocol". Not that explicit protocols isn't occasionally useful, but I think the current subclassResponsibility mechanism gets the same point across.