Re: Just for the record
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:02:16 GMT
Message-ID: <YmAog.3386$pu3.82117_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Agreed, and having worked in Lisp's Meta Object Protocol (MOP),
> Kiczales should know much better. While MOP and Lisp are far from
> perfect, their support for metaprogramming doesn't require anything
> near the intellectual mutilations required to cram these "concepts"
> into Java.
>
> I'd like to hear more, though - is there a particular EWD that got you
> thinking about this?
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:02:16 GMT
Message-ID: <YmAog.3386$pu3.82117_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
erk wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Marshall wrote: >> >>>Well, I've been trying to figure out what specifically you're referring >>>to, and I'm not having much luck. The author(s) you mention seem >>>to be associated with Aspect Oriented Programming, which, although >>>I have no particular reason to think it worth my attention, nonetheless >>>has not (as far as I know) *redefined* any terms, but rather seems >>>to have made up their own terms. But perhaps terms such as >>>"aspects" and "cross cutting" had an earlier meaning I was not >>>aware of? Or perhaps I'm just missing your direction entirely. >> >>I am particularly disgusted by their perversion of Dijkstra's >>intellectual discipline of separating of concerns.
>
> Agreed, and having worked in Lisp's Meta Object Protocol (MOP),
> Kiczales should know much better. While MOP and Lisp are far from
> perfect, their support for metaprogramming doesn't require anything
> near the intellectual mutilations required to cram these "concepts"
> into Java.
>
> I'd like to hear more, though - is there a particular EWD that got you
> thinking about this?
Check out the discussion pages on wikipedia for "Concern" and "Separation of concerns" Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 21:02:16 CEST