Re: CommonLoops

[Gregor.pa@Xerox.ARPA]

The point that you are raising is a good one, its one that we have
worried about and one for which I think we have an answer.  The answer
is in 3 parts.

1.
Most people would do all of their programming using kernel CommonLoops
and the "class" metaclass.  The kernel and the "class" metaclass are
designed to merge the best aspects of exisiting  object-oriented
languages into a single coherent framework.  With some community
discussion the kernel and "class" metaclass should become even more
"what is needed almost all the time".

2.
Because CommonLoops provides support for implementing different object
languages it would be easier for a large group of people to try out new
experimental ideas.

3.
The compatability metaclasses (loops, flavor etc.) would be more for
supporting old code than they would be for writing new code.  But
someone who really needed a different object paradigm to implement a
system they were distributing could implement it using CommonLoops as a
base and be confident that their system would run fast in another Common
Lisp implementation.

In summary, there wouldn't be a morass of different flavor classes
floating around, nor would there be a morass of different code styles
floating around.  Most people would program in kernel CommonLoops.  But
for the few people who need to use a different paradigm, and for the
support of exisiting code, CommonLoops provides a base for implementing
different object systems.