Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Coun
Message-ID: <9wsNXc1w165w@sytex.com>
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
References: <3d75oq$r1q@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:06:19 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104279 comp.lang.lisp:16119

det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland) writes:

> procedural features tacked on to the language after.  My question
> really comes down to, "Does the functional approach of Lisp scale up
> as well as the OO approach of C++ (and other OO languages)."
> 
Howdy,
        Good question. I'd answer with a resounding yes. Common Lisp
includes CLOS, which "scales up" extremely well. See the papers in
"Object Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective" for some wild
and nifty examples of "scaling up" (a Good Read, IMHO, in any case).
        In general, though, the Lisp family languages include 
constructs that scale up to most problems, whether or not the language
includes native OOP constructs.  Problem seems to be scaling 
down ;-) This is where C/Pascal/C++ really shine.

=============================================
Scott McLoughlin
Conscious Computing
=============================================
