Re: Aspect Oriented Programming in context of lightweight languages.

[Michael Vanier <address@hidden>]

Now that I think of it, I believe the comment referred to metaobject
protocols.  Do any MOP gurus wish to comment about whether a MOP can be
viewed as a superset of AOP and/or something that AOP can easily be
implemented in terms of?  

[Ouch -- we're getting into TLA salad here...]

Mike


> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:40:56 -0500
> From: Daniel Weinreb <DLWeinreb@attbi.com>
> 
> Michael Vanier wrote:
> 
> >I read somewhere (perhaps in an interview) where Kiczales said that CLOS
> >was too powerful for most programmers to make good use of, and AOP was his
> >attempt to simplify the underlying ideas and make them accessible to more
> >programmers.  I'm paraphrasing; if anyone finds the original source, please
> >post a link.
> >
> Hmm. When I went to Gregor's one-day workshop at MIT last fall, I am 
> pretty sure that the line he
> took was that object-oriented programming is just great as far as it 
> goes, but that there are further
> issues of program/system modularity that are beyond its reach, and 
> aspect-oriented programming
> exists to deal with some of those additional problems. That sounded (and 
> still sounds) right to me.
> 
> 
>