🚀 go-pugleaf

In <2772@charon.cwi.nl> guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) writes :-

> As I read them, all those "definitions" of first-class don't really
> define it, but merely use a convenient term to convey a somewhat vague
> but useful idea which is then explained more precisely.

I disagree.  The definition given by Norman Graham
(<1991Jan9.061340.21668@d.cs.okstate.edu>) seems to capture exactly
what it means for an object to be first-class.  I don't see anything
vague in the idea at all.

> On the other hand, the problem is no worse than the lack of built-in
> dynamic data structures (such as variable-size arrays) in C -- everybody
> knows how to roll their own, and for some this possibility is essential
> because it means they aren't stuck with a built-in feature that may be
> too slow or inflexible for a particular application.

The efficiency argument (yet) again.  There are a number of reasons
for writing a whole application in a single language%.  However, I
don't think efficiency is one of them.  I'm sure everybody knows the
following steps :-

Write in a high level language.
Profile it.
Identify the bottlenecks.
Re-code or re-write in a lower level language.

However, most seem to equate ``high level langauge'' with C and low
level language with assembler.  Why not try ``high level langauge'' =
Scheme* and ``low level language'' = C.  It works for me, your mileage
may vary.

Stephen J. Bevan	bevan@cs.man.ac.uk

% I'm currently in the middle of writing a medium sized C program
(20,000 LOC).  I would prefer to write in some other language
(preferably Scheme/CommonLisp) , but I'm constrained by what compilers
other people have.

* Replace by your personal favourite e.g. Prolog, Smalltalk,
  CommonLisp, Self, Icon, ... etc.