There isn;t any reason an optional package can't take advantage of XoTcl right now! I am just hesitant to _require_ XoTcl for a base install of OpenACS. The two options can coexist.
I hope the folks from Vienna will share their code. If that happens then it would be one incentive to investigate adopting XoTcl for OpenACS core. Without any existing code though, I don't see adding a new requirement as very compelling.
Also there is a HUGE body of existing code that does not require XoTcl and it seems to be working reasonably well :) I think just taking the ideas of encapsulation and well defined procedures that do what you expect from object oriented programming woudl go a long way. That is, good design is what will make OpenACS a good platform. The programming style is secondary at best.
Also, now that I am on a roll, I think if someone wanted to make a big contribution to OpenACS, writing automated tests would be of a much greater benefit than trying to inject a new programming style into OpenACS. Making sure the code we already have is the best we can do is very important.
