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!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <D181K4.BHn@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3d5alh$6j7@celebrian.otago.ac.nz> <3d6s2q$h20@jabba.ess.harris.com> <3d75oq$r1q@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:52:52 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104541 comp.lang.lisp:16154

In article <3d75oq$r1q@transfer.stratus.com> det@phlan.sw.stratus.com writes:
>
>I don't think anyone would argue against the statement that a small program
>in C++ takes more design and planning than one in C, or Lisp.  But when
>the program gets larger, the pieces tend to fit together with fewer
>deleterious interactions than programs written from a procedural
>mindset.  On the other hand, Lisp takes a functional approach, with
>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)."

But this is just false.  You can easily write procedural of OO Lisp.
Moreover, most Lisp programs are *not* functional.

>I'm really talking less about the languages themselves than about the
>programming paradigms they are designed to facilitate, although
>inevitably, how well the language assists the user in holding to the
>paradigm is also relevent.

Common Lisp is, if anything, better at procedural and OO programming
than at functional programming.

-- jeff
