I do not think anyone is claiming that "JAVA" is technically superior to
"LISP".
"JAVA" was designed specifically to solve certain problems
without alienating C/C++ writers. This is a key point in marketing.
"JAVA" *is* a breath of fresh air for people involved in
the drudgery of writing C/C++ programs.
I have written "LISP","JAVA" and "C/C++" and find "JAVA"
to be a very acceptable compromise.
I am immensely comforted by the fact that I can write "JAVA" code
and it will run on virtually any platform with no modification or
recompilation.
Can you say that about Common Lisp or C/C++ ?
Eric Taylor <······@us.itmasters.com> writes:
> I am immensely comforted by the fact that I can write "JAVA" code
> and it will run on virtually any platform with no modification or
> recompilation.
> Can you say that about Common Lisp or C/C++ ?
dude,
many anecdotes have already been related by people who saw their
so-called "portable" java programs crash, burn and generally fail to
run on alternate platforms.
so you can't say that about java, either.
Lyn
-------------------------------------------------------
remove the word "bogus" from my address for the real one.
From: William Paul Vrotney
Subject: Re: Java should not excite anyone who knows Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <vrotneyEG2G83.1Eu@netcom.com>
In article <·················@us.itmasters.com> Eric Taylor
<······@us.itmasters.com> writes:
>
> I am immensely comforted by the fact that I can write "JAVA" code
> and it will run on virtually any platform with no modification or
> recompilation.
>
> Can you say that about Common Lisp or C/C++ ?
>
You can say that about Emacs elisp.
And maybe Clisp Common Lisp. Bruno Haible?
--
William P. Vrotney - ·······@netcom.com
Eric Taylor <······@us.itmasters.com> writes:
| > I am immensely comforted by the fact that I can write "JAVA" code
| > and it will run on virtually any platform with no modification or
| > recompilation.
| >
| > Can you say that about Common Lisp or C/C++ ?
To put the answer directly to the question: Common Lisp is a programming
language that is designed for portability.
Both Java and Common Lisp have areas where they are not as portable as
they should be. Unlike Java, however, these areas in Common Lisp are
clearly defined, and Common Lisp is much more complete, robust, mature,
and bug-free.
This is not to say that Java is a bad thing. Java is pretty good. And when
it works right, it will be GREAT. But Lisp is also GREAT, already.
Also in the same category of "high level languages that strive for
portability" are BASIC and perl. They are also GREAT.
·······@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney) wrote:
| You can say that about Emacs elisp.
|
| And maybe Clisp Common Lisp. Bruno Haible?
And, of course, the ever popular AutoCAD auto-lisp.
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Java should not excite anyone who knows Lisp
Date:
Message-ID: <3082529494092259@naggum.no>
* Eric Taylor
| I am immensely comforted by the fact that I can write "JAVA" code
| and it will run on virtually any platform with no modification or
| recompilation.
this is true only in the dreams of marketing people.
| Can you say that about Common Lisp or C/C++ ?
for Common Lisp, the answer is actually "yes", and it has been for years.
#\Erik
--
404 You're better off without that file. Trust me.