winkler@harvard.ARPA (Dan Winkler) (06/03/85)
Is it possible to use the features in Common Lisp to do object oriented programming? I know you can store functions on property lists and think of the property name as a message and its value as a method, but that doesn't provide any sort of inheritance. The reason I ask is that, although I love Smalltalk and would rather use it, I don't have access to a practical Smalltalk implementation. We do have Berkeley Smalltalk here on the Suns, but it is really too slow for serious work. Besides, what I really want is Smalltalk on my Macintosh, but the last I heard was you still need a Lisa to run Apple's Smalltalk. What I can get for my Mac now is Experlisp, which is reportedly (I haven't actually seen it) similar to Common Lisp. Since I think that object oriented programming and packages like Apple's MacApp are currently the best bet for producing Macintosh-like programs with a finite amount of effort, I'd like to use those techniques in a native, interactive development environment and the only such environment I've heard of being currently available is Experlisp. Sorry this query is so confused. I hope someone can shed some light on the question.
sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz) (06/04/85)
In article <157@harvard.ARPA> winkler@harvard.ARPA (Dan Winkler) writes: >Is it possible to use the features in Common Lisp to do object oriented >programming? > [ . . . deleted mention of desire to do it on a Macintosh . . . ] >only such environment I've heard of being currently available is >Experlisp. The Expertelligence people claim that Experlisp will have full support for object oriented programming "Real Soon Now", with sophisticated inheritance and so forth. I seem to recall some mention of a Flavors compatibility package, but I'm not sure of that. -- Sidney Markowitz ARPA: sidney@mitre-bedford UUCP: ...{allegra,decvax,genrad,ihnp4,philabs,security,utzoo}!linus!sidney
cpd@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/07/85)
> Macintosh, but the last I heard was you still need a Lisa to run > techniques in a native, interactive development environment and the > only such environment I've heard of being currently available is > Experlisp. > ExperLisp does not currently implement lexical closures. That makes it difficult to creat an object oriented system. -Charlie Dolan Subject: Re: Common Lisp and Object Oriented Programming Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp,net.lang.st80,net.ai,net.micro.mac Distribution: net References: <157@harvard.ARPA> > Is it possible to use the features in Common Lisp to do object oriented > programming? I know you can store functions on property lists and > think of the property name as a message and its value as a method, but > that doesn't provide any sort of inheritance. > > The reason I ask is that, although I love Smalltalk and would rather > use it, I don't have access to a practical Smalltalk implementation. > We do have Berkeley Smalltalk here on the Suns, but it is really too > slow for serious work. Besides, what I really want is Smalltalk on my > Macintosh, but the last I heard was you still need a Lisa to run > Apple's Smalltalk. What I can get for my Mac now is Experlisp, which > is reportedly (I haven't actually seen it) similar to Common Lisp. > Since I think that object oriented programming and packages like > Apple's MacApp are currently the best bet for producing Macintosh-like > programs with a finite amount of effort, I'd like to use those > techniques in a native, interactive development environment and the > only such environment I've heard of being currently available is > Experlisp. > > Sorry this query is so confused. I hope someone can shed some light on > the question. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (06/10/85)
[] > From: cpd@ucla-cs.UUCP > ExperLisp does not currently implement lexical closures. That makes it > difficult to creat an object oriented system. The keyword there is currently. Expertelligence is promising to add closures in future versions (though they didn't say how soon ... ) Version 1.1 will allow programmers to define our own classes, a feature missing from this release. BTW, an OPS-5 has already been written in ExperLisp. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Bitnet: shor%sphinx@uchicago.bitnet