Re: A question (confusion) about closure

På Wed, 07 May 2008 10:01:58 +0200, skrev Didier Verna  
<didier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:

> pjb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
>
>> And yes, this include several MUAs entirely written in emacs lisp, so
>> if it's not fine to do that, at least it doesn't discourrage emacs
>> lisp programmers...
>
>   Right :-) You can always knock in a nail with a screw driver. You just
> wish you had a hammer ;-)
>
> But to be really fair, once you get a hammer, it doesn't mean you know
> how to use it properly. So part of the problem we have today is also due
> to extremely bad design and ugly code in most elisp lines out there.
>
> So on the one hand, we have elisp code, mostly a collection of crappy
> hacks on top of each other, but it works... and I'm really wondering, if
> a standard elisp object system had existed in the first place, would the
> original programmers have been skilled enough to use it and design their
> stuff properly ?
>
> On the other hand, we have XEmacs code base, which is very well designed
> and abstracted, OO actually[1], but it is written in C with a bunch of  
> ugly
> macrology on top because it is rather hard to object-orient plain C  
> code...
>

erm. emacs is a evolved system that worked the whole time while they added
 
code. If you had 'designed' it with the current features I doubt if it  
would ever have worked in the first place. Another question is if OO  
design would have made it 'better' or just more 'familiar'.

--------------
John Thingstad