[Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Denis Washington (14 Oct 2011 12:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Alaric Snell-Pym (14 Oct 2011 12:20 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Alaric Snell-Pym (14 Oct 2011 12:33 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Denis Washington (14 Oct 2011 13:57 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Andy Wingo (14 Oct 2011 12:28 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Andre van Tonder (14 Oct 2011 13:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism John Cowan (14 Oct 2011 22:48 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Andre van Tonder (15 Oct 2011 20:15 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] WG2 Scheme and Polymporphism Andre van Tonder 15 Oct 2011 20:13 UTC

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, John Cowan wrote:

> Andre van Tonder scripsit:
>
> I didn't put any OO packages on the ballot for fear of going down a
> rathole; people often feel strongly about specific OO packages, or about
> not having one.

You're right about that ;)

I feel quite strongly that OO is for languages without first class functions
(or for programmers who do not understand first class functions, who shouldn't
be using Scheme anyway).  Most OO languages in fact need OO only because they
were purposely hobbled in this department.

Andre

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports