I recently had a paper rejected from ECOOP '09. It sounds like it was close to getting in, and it's possible that the review summarized below tipped the balance. I've paraphrased most comments to protect the guilty. A running total of the error count is displayed in parens.
> "This paper appears to be very carefully worked out. However I have difficulty finding anything here that is especially novel or exciting." (-)
Must I be penalized for your lack of imagination? ;)
> The proposal is less expressive than traits (1), is more complex, and does not solve any problem that traits don't solve. (2)
In fact, it is strictly more expressive, its complexity relative to traits is subjective, and solves the problem of multiple inheritance with state, which traits don't solve. But, yes, other than that, the comment is accurate.
> I can translate most of the proposed language to language X. (3)
Um, yeah, except for the small matter of, oh, information hiding, and modular external methods. Is the rest "most"?
> External methods would not be available to instances created by existing classes that only know about the original class. (4)
False.
> For this reason either extension classes or aspects are needed so that the existing class can be extended. (5)
False. External methods will do it, and they are modular.
> The work on Y seems relevant here. (6)
The problem they are solving is actually orthogonal.
____
Now, ECOOP does include a rebuttal phase, where authors can correct factual errors in reviews. However, this review was done *after* the rebuttal phase, probably to figure out what to do with a paper with such conflicting reviews.
This is why some people sign their reviews--they want to be held accountable. Clearly this reviewer was not an expert in the area, or was too biased about the holy nature of traits.