AOP Without The Buzzwords

I found this attempt at a buzzword free explanation of aspect oriented programming from Adrian Colyer's blog in the June archives of the ll-discuss maillist just posted. I think I finally have some idea what the aspect oriented hoohah is about, at least I was able to read the Introduction to AspectJ and make some sense of it for the first time. Maybe I'm just dense but until now I just didn't get it. This comment from Pascal Constanza in the ensuing thread shed a little more light on it at least for me coming from a functional perspective.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Peter Van Roy claims

We have actually SOLVED some of the problems that they are still cracking their heads over. The hordes of AOP groupies have a right to know this.

now all we need is paul graha

now all we need is paul graham saying that lisp users were complaining about other languages reinventing things decades before oz users.

more seriously, to me the aspectj text shouted out two things: (1) before/after in lisp/clos; (2) matching of method names - yuk. so i can understand pascal constanza's comments. i don't really grok what pvr is saying though - is the idea that oz solves the problems that motivate aop without using aspects? if so, why does he object to the title of that email?

PVR is on vacation Auvergne, he told me as he left yesterday, with no internet access. An answer will have to wait for his return.