Article View: comp.lang.clos
Article #135Beginner's Question - CLOS
From: Richard P. Gabriel
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:59
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:59
14 lines
1250 bytes
1250 bytes
What I'm getting at is that C and C++ are moving closer to Lisp in lots of ways, also. For example, that community seems to like incremental development for its speed, but they don't see a *need* to reload a changed function and *proceed*. They see a need to reload it and start afresh from main. I take this as being just one step away from the pure Lisp model. Yet they - and I - prefer to be able to do a fresh compile, mostly because there is then a baseline so that when things get screwed up, I can start afresh without having to do a lot to re-create where I was. What I don't want to do is to superficially analyze what is different between Lisp and C and then go off and implement that. -rpg-
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9209152159.AA02024@inferno.lucid>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!lucid.com!rpg%infernoReferences:
<28117.9209151906@aiai.ed.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!lucid.com!rpg%inferno From: rpg%inferno@lucid.com (Richard P. Gabriel) Subject: Beginner's Question - CLOS Message-ID: <9209152159.AA02024@inferno.lucid> Sender: daemon@cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science References: <28117.9209151906@aiai.ed.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:59:55 GMT Lines: 15