······@netcom.com (Will Hartung) wrote:
[to a beginner wanting to implement Lisp for the educational experience]
> You can leave out a
> "select few" of the 1000+ operators in Lisp, but which ones and how do
> you choose?
If you want to stay roughly similar to Common Lisp, but the latter exceeds
your capacity, another alternative would be ISLisp (standardized by ISO).
For the language specification, go to
ftp://ftp.harlequin.co.uk/pub/kmp/iso/v20/
It has roughly the same "size" as Scheme, but it's object oriented, and
the functionality is somewhat more oriented towards things which most
programmers might want in practice, rather than theoretical elegance
as for Scheme (e.g. various forms of non-local exit vs. Scheme's general
continuations) - though some seasoned Common Lisp programmers will also
surely miss quite a lot in both Lisp dialects (let's not start a flame
war about that, please).
As it happens, I'm about to use an extension of ISLisp for a modular
Lisp, compiled to C, which can cooperate with (or be plugged into)
different kinds of environments, to be used as shell-style scripting
language, as extension language for programs written e.g. in C, or for
complete stand-alone applications in Lisp. I'm going to post my ideas
about a static module system, and its interaction with macros, probably
during the next few days. (Desipite the title of this thread, I'm doing
this on Unix, though.)
-- Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>
Marc Wachowitz wrote:
> It has roughly the same "size" as Scheme, but it's object oriented,
PC Scheme (originally from Texas Instruments) was object-oriented.
It came with SCOOPS. I don't know if SCOOPS is an extension or
an integral part of Scheme.
Paging Richard O'Keefe!
> -- Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>
--
Le Hibou (mo bheachd fhe/in: my own opinion)
"What the ... This is Lambic! Where's my culture of amoebic
dysentery?"
-- Gary Larson