Re: Closures versus objects
Pascal Costanza <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.lightweight |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 21 Feb 2007, at 15:38, Johan wrote: > James Y Knight wrote: >> On Feb 20, 2007, at 2:49 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote: > >>> The point is that often independent definitions invite what I'll >>> call the >>> "modularity problem" where definitions look ok in isolation but >>> surprising >>> effects happen in combination. Similar to what >>> (+ 1 2 "foo") >>> might do if we allowed + to be generic." > > >> which, of course, has the exact same behavior as the generic >> length above. That choice of behavior is simply a choice in >> specification, and really has very little to do with whether you >> use a generic function or not. > > I think Pascal was aiming more towards the observation that lisp > couldn't figure out how to do it well, so didn't do it at all. > > I think there may room for an interesting paper comparing the > different approaches to problem solving; is it preferable to have > a rapid, but somewhat haphasard solution, or a gem, but much later? That's the old discussion about whether worse is better or not. See http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium