From: Ville V. <vil...@gm...> - 2009-01-19 14:57:15
|
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Alessio Stalla <ale...@gm...> wrote: >>> I think ABCL's CLOS implementation ... shouldn't be done by Java- >>> side work. > I'm not very convinced about this. I think some sort of Java > integration can provide some benefits (i.e. as I said tight > integration between CLOS and the Java object system). I'm not saying > that ABCL's CLOS should be written entirely/mostly in Java, but the > lower-level building blocks (let's say the minimal object system > implementation needed to bootstrap CLOS, where it makes sense) could > imho be written in Java. Well, if PCL drops into place easily, it's a bit hard to come up with arguments against it, since it allows us to avoid writing AMOP from scratch. I have no idea what PCL requires, so this remains to be seen. A complete rewrite of abcl CLOS from the ground up is likely months away and that's optimistic. The idea of using PCL sounds a bit more attractive on the surface. |