    <Josh_2> Hi hi   [14:18]
    <Josh_2> beach: you here? 
         *** wacki (~wacki@i59F5E438.versanet.de) has quit: Quit: My iMac has gone to
             sleep. ZZZzzz…  [14:20]
     <beach> Yes.
         *** rgherdt (~rgherdt@2a02:2454:466:d800:5683:fe0e:fb0:fb3a) has joined channel
             #commonlisp  [14:24]
    <Josh_2> beach: What is the origin of 'protocol oriented programming'   [14:25]
         *** ymir (~ymir___@192.211.30.152) has quit: Ping timeout: 256 seconds
    <Josh_2> the term  [14:26]
     <beach> Where did you see the term used?
    <Josh_2> hmm
     <beach> I don't think I have used it.
    <Josh_2> hmmmm
    <Josh_2> one minuteeee
         *** chomwitt (~chomwitt@2a02:587:7a18:fc00:1ac0:4dff:fedb:a3f1) has quit: Ping
             timeout: 246 seconds  [14:31]
    <Josh_2> Hmm  [14:32]
    <Josh_2> perhaps I just came up with it :thinking: 
    <Josh_2> I dont know why I thought you wrote it in the SICL Specification   [14:33]
    <Josh_2> 32.14 Extensible Libraries 
    <Josh_2> Using *client* as an extension of a library written in a 'protocol oriented'
             way is very cool  [14:34]
     <beach> I don't see it.  [14:35]
    <Josh_2> You didn't write it
    <Josh_2> I was mistaken but its okay :thumbsup: 
     <beach> Oh, I see.  [14:36]
    <Josh_2> I wrote an OpenTelemetry library 6 months ago that uses a similar technique
             to the one described in 32.14 
      <aeth> is CLIM protocol-oriented programming?
    <Josh_2> I would say so  [14:37]
     <beach> There is nothing new or particularly special about protocols.  They are just
             generalizations of interfaces that Common Lisp allows, like multiple dispatch
             and such.
     <beach> And interfaces have been around for half a century or more.  [14:38]
    <Josh_2> Yes
    <Josh_2> :thinking: 
     <beach> So just like an interface, a protocol is merely a way to specify what part of
             a module is visible externally.  [14:39]
         *** ymir (~ymir___@192.211.30.152) has joined channel #commonlisp
    <Josh_2> Was it a 'thing' before AMOP?   [14:40]
    <Josh_2> or MOP at least
     <beach> As such, it contains types (usually classes) and operations (usually generic
             functions).
     <beach> I don't know.  The concept of a protocol doesn't require CLOS.  It could have
             ordinary functions and types, but it would be a bit limited then.  [14:42]
    <Josh_2>  The term 'protocol oriented programming' seems fitting to me
    <Josh_2> I dont know what I'm thinking but I'm thinking something :thinking:   [14:43]
     <beach> As I recall, one of the examples in my chapter on protocols is a protocol
             with the operations CONS, CAR, CDR, and the type CONS.  Nothing CLOS-y here.
                                                                                    [14:44]
         *** ymir (~ymir___@192.211.30.152) has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds
     <beach> In fact, since an interface is a restricted version of a protocol, every
             interface is a protocol, so protocols have been around for as long as
             interfaces, but perhaps not with that name  [14:45]
    <Josh_2> Perpaps but much of the examples of 'Protocol' in the SICL spec do in fact
             use GF's
     <beach> Sure.
    <Josh_2> hmmmm
     <beach> But I think the dependency is the other way around.  Since it used generic
             functions, classes, and multiple dispatch, it can't be an interface, so we
             have to call it a protocol.  [14:46]
    <Josh_2> Perhaps I mistakenly assumed the terminology was taken from Meta Object
             Protocol rather than something else
     <beach> Oh, I don't think so.  Meta Object Protocol is just a protocol that works on
             metaobjects.  [14:47]
    <Josh_2> Right 
     <beach> So the "types" are classes of metaobjects.
    <Josh_2> The essence being a set of GF's that a client can specialize in order to
             customize the behaviour. If a designer of a different system sat down and
             wrote their system in a way that utilizes GF's so that a user of their system
             can customize the behaviour through specialization of GF's, I would call this
             'protocol oriented programming'   [14:48]
    <Josh_2> although they may be the client of their own system :thinking:   [14:49]
     <beach> Customization is not a required part of a protocol though.
    <Josh_2> Okay perhaps I should rephrase   [14:50]
     <beach> It just so happens that CLOS allows for such customization by subclassing and
             auxiliary methods.
         *** amb007 (~a_bakic@2a02-8440-331a-7690-243b-a8c1-5ce2-c684.rev.sfr.net) has
             quit: Ping timeout: 260 seconds
    <Josh_2> Okay :thinking:   [14:51]
         *** danza (~francesco@151.47.186.224) has joined channel #commonlisp
     <beach> Maybe you need a new term for a protocol that allows customization.
         *** amb007 (~a_bakic@2a02-8440-b148-869b-6f79-1b96-683e-58fa.rev.sfr.net) has
             joined channel #commonlisp
   <ebrasca> Good morning!  [14:52]
    <Josh_2> As far as I can tell if you are writing a protocol using GF's then
             customization is implied 
     <beach> Hello ebrasca.
    <Josh_2> it might not be desired but it is implied.  
   <ebrasca> beach: Hi  [14:53]
    <Josh_2> I think that is besides the point though. 
     <beach> Josh_2: Not quite.  If the protocol uses only "primitive" types like INTEGER,
             CONS, HASH-TABLE, you can't create a subclass.  And you can't create
             auxiliary methods either, because they would be applicable when given only
             specified types, and that is not allowed.  [14:54]
    <Josh_2> True :thinking: 
    <Josh_2> Perhaps the tipping point would be introducing an auxiliary variable like
             your *client* idea   [14:55]
    <Josh_2> which I have done unintentionally 
     <beach> But, of course, if it uses only primitive types, there is no particular
             reason to use generic functions.
    <Josh_2> But there are times when you want a generic interface even if it accepts
             primitive types, like #'describe   [14:57]
    <Josh_2> idk 
    <Josh_2> :thinking: 
    <Josh_2> maybe 'generic protocol programming' :thinking:   [14:58]
     <beach> Yes, but I said "only primitive types".
    <Josh_2> I know i know 
       <pve> beach: Hi, could you expand on "an interface is a restricted version of a
             protocol"? When is a protocol not an interface?
     <beach> pve: When it uses multiple dispatch.  The usual definition of an interface
             defines a single type and operations on it.  But I am sure there are other
             definitions of "interface".  [14:59]
       <pve> beach: oh ok, thanks
     <beach> I tried to formalize the concept a bit here:
             http://metamodular.com/protocol.pdf  [15:01]
         *** waleee (~waleee@h-176-10-144-38.NA.cust.bahnhof.se) has quit: Ping timeout:
             240 seconds
         *** danza (~francesco@151.47.186.224) has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds
     <beach> I am not sure it is complete or entirely correct, but I haven't heard any
             objections so far.
    <Josh_2> :O   [15:02]
    <Josh_2> Where is that from?   [15:03]
         *** philipp_ (~philipp_@2003:a:d4d:e700:ca5b:76ff:fea6:aae2) has joined channel
             #commonlisp
    <Josh_2> its 'chapter 5'
     <beach> From an incomplete book that I wrote.  [15:04]
         *** amb007 (~a_bakic@2a02-8440-b148-869b-6f79-1b96-683e-58fa.rev.sfr.net) has
             quit: Ping timeout: 246 seconds
         *** waleee (~waleee@h-176-10-144-38.NA.cust.bahnhof.se) has joined channel
             #commonlisp  [15:05]
         *** amb007 (~a_bakic@2a02:8440:b138:a482:8a17:ac3c:bf:16dc) has joined channel
             #commonlisp
    <Josh_2> What was it about?   [15:06]
    <Josh_2> 'generic protocol' is a more specific term that implies the use of generic
             functions :thinking:   [15:07]
    <Josh_2> what you describe is more general and not what I was thinking 
    <Josh_2> 'Maybe you need a new term for a protocol that allows customization' Yes I do
                                                                                    [15:08]
     <beach> I think the title is "Programming with Generic Functions"
    <Josh_2> :O   [15:09]
    <Josh_2> How complete is it??
     <beach> It has 116 pages apparently.
    <Josh_2> Can I see it? 
     <beach> Nah, not worthwhile.  It is quite incomplete.  [15:10]
     <beach> And it very likely will remain incomplete.
    <Josh_2> :(   [15:11]
    <Josh_2> What are the chapter titles? 
     <beach> All my book projects are abandoned, or at least suspended.  I can't write
             books by myself, and my favorite coauthor quit being interested in writing
             books.  [15:12]
 <splittist> give it a few months and you'll be able to generate the whole book with a
             fully animated video presentation from a set of notes via your favourite LLM
             (:
     <beach> That might work.
     <beach> Josh_2: I haven't even decided on all the chapter titles.  I don't work like
             that.
    <Josh_2> :(   [15:13]
    <Josh_2> I really want to see it now :(   [15:15]
 <splittist> Josh_2:  create the future you want to see!  [15:17]
    <Josh_2> I'm trying!!  [15:18]
    <Josh_2> Maybe beach and I write book on 'Programming with Generic Functions' :) 
    <Josh_2> Seems fitting  [15:19]
    <Josh_2> Im already good at LaTeX and I recently formatted a 200+ page book full of
             speeches :sunglasses: Thats being published now  [15:21]
         *** chomwitt (~chomwitt@2a02:587:7a18:fc00:1ac0:4dff:fedb:a3f1) has joined
             channel #commonlisp  [15:31]
    <Josh_2> beach: can I see :)   [15:36]
         *** dino_tutter (~dino@2a00:23c7:2b23:e501:264b:71b7:b9b1:fd3e) has joined