On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 09:12, Jonathan Bachrach wrote: > > LIKES: > > * terseness vs common lisp > > Code compactness contributes to readability, at least to a point. I > > think goo strikes a good balance here although the d? keywords are a > > little bit hard to distinguish. > > yeah i've thought about at least adding synonyms such as defclass. a > lot of people grumble at the beginning but then seem to like the > terseness and the saved columns. Well, I'm willing to withold judgement until I've had a chance to get used to it. > > DISLIKES: > > * <type> notation > > Is it really necessary to so strongly distinguish types syntactically? > > it's just a naming convention. you can name your types whatever you > want. you can even alias the builtin ones if you like. That's interesting. I guess I'd still feel compelled to follow the convention just so that other people can read my code. For some reason it makes me feel better that it's not enforced by the compiler. > actually what i was thinking was changing goo over to using case > sensitivity and having all caps be the convention for types. People will probably scream bloody murder at this but I like it. I'm not a fan of case-insensitivity. I might be if the rest of the world was case-insensitive, but as it is it makes interfacing with languages like java and c a pain. > it is. i agree that the curly notation is very experimental. Well, consider this a vote for a more visually obvious syntax if you decide to keep this. > you can pretty much do this. the only exception is local functions. > these could be done as generic functions as well and allow users to > have multiple methods on a given local generic. in general, i think it > is a mistake for users to use raw methods as this precludes future > extension (of course this might be what the user wants but this is > meant to be a very dynamic language). It feels a little bit like the clairvoyance you need deciding whether or not to declare virtual functions in C++. Will the plain functions be significantly faster? > i'm not planning on taking on python. i'm interested in a number of > research directions and application areas. i've got a pretty good base > and now plan to push it. i will continue to make it available and > respond to suggestions but i don't have world domination in mind. That's very modest of you. :) Is the compile-to-c implementation a deliberate feature or just the easiest implementation? It does seem to make interfacing with c libraries pretty straightforward, which is a big plus. -- Miles Egan <miles@caddr.com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part