Near the bottom of page 1 of
http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
one finds the following text:
... ANSI CL remains the only language that meets all of the
criteria set forth by the Object Management Group (OMG) for a
complete object-oriented language.
I've not had much success with Google here; anyone know where these
criteria can be found ?
Thanks.
Jacek Generowicz <················@cern.ch> writes:
> Near the bottom of page 1 of
>
> http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf
>
> one finds the following text:
>
> ... ANSI CL remains the only language that meets all of the
> criteria set forth by the Object Management Group (OMG) for a
> complete object-oriented language.
>
> I've not had much success with Google here; anyone know where these
> criteria can be found ?
While this guess wouldn't make much sense, it might be useful.
If you look at the mismatch between OO concepts in Corba vs. those in
CL, you see that CL offers quite a bit more. But on the other hand,
CLOS very easily handles Corba, probably with a small fraction of the
effort to implement OMG's Corba spec in other languages (even C++). I
have not known OMG to say much on what an OO language should
provide...but considering that even C has Corba bindings and interfaces,
it's hard to say that what languages do not fit OMG's OO criteria.
I wouldn't even worry about the above quote, unless you're concerned
about misrepresentation and accuracy. I scanned the omg.org site for
this, as well as google, and also found nothing direct (indirect stuff
is below)...but of course that doesn't mean it's not there...just means
that whoever _did_ find this was probably looking hard for it.
The indirect stuff could be found at:
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:QqGOcsNrVG4C:www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf+%22complete+object-oriented%22+omg+%22common+lisp%22&hl=en
if that helps. My google search terms were:
"complete object-oriented" omg "common lisp"
dave