[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:41:41 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 05:22:37PM -0500, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
> Colin> Different languages are good at different things.  For example, if
> Colin> you wanted to implement the above using GTK+, you really want to use
> Colin> an object-oriented programming style.  Doing anything nontrivial
> Colin> with a GUI in a procedural manner is just painful.  If we
> Colin> artificially restrict the tla extension libraries to say Scheme
> Colin> (which lacks OO features), then we've also restricted the classes of
> Misinformation alert:  Scheme certainly can have OO features; Guile does.

Also Colin's statement is just plain silly.  There's nothing magic about `OO
features' or `OO programming style', and no reason to suppose that any tla
extension interface would preclude using them fully in the extension
language.  The underlying question is `Will the interface expose all useful
state to the extension language?'  If it does, then no problem.*

* Obviously if the extension language wishes to map certain pieces of tla
  state into extension-language `objects', then it's going to have to do the
  mapping in the interface -- but that's clearly going to be necessary
  regardless, unless tla itself were rewritten to explicitly use the given
  extension-language (and that seems very, very, unlikely).

Colin, if you are thinking of a specific issue, please spell it out.

Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]