[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Aspect Oriented Programming in context of lightweight languages.
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...]
> 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.