Anti-OOP... stupid?

[foobar]

On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 20:55:47 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
<snip>
>> Lisp/scheme macros come to mind :)
>
> =D. I actually thought about explicitly excluding those to get 
> a more meaningful answer. Using runtime code modification is 
> cheating.
>
> There are certainly ways to dynamically dispatch, expand and 
> execute a macro in lisp. If every D program was allowed to 
> include a complete D compiler, virtual template functions would 
> work too. Can you point me to an implementation in lisp that 
> does this and is actually fast enough to be considered for real 
> work?
>
>> There are no issues AFAIK integrating
>> those with OOP, in fact the OOP features are implemented with 
>> macros
>> (CLOS).
>
> You can use templates to implement a multiple-dispatch virtual 
> function system just fine. We are not talking about 
> implementing OOP using templates, but about using templated 
> virtual methods.
>
> Anyway, I don't see your point yet: You seem to think templates 
> are poorly designed because dynamic languages such as lisp are 
> more flexible than static languages such as D?

I'm no lisp expert and as such Google would be better than me to 
point to specific implementations and such :)

regarding run-time modification of code - as I said, i'm no lisp 
expert but I did hear about lisp AOT compilers so it should be a 
matter of implementation. Another example which I'm more familiar 
with is Nemerle macros which are closely related to Lisp macros 
and follow similar design principles. In fact Nemerle macros are 
separately compiled plugins for the compiler which can manipulate 
the AST directly.

Regarding templated virtual methods - take a look at:
http://nemerle.org/wiki/index.php?title=Design_patterns