I didn't read your link, but self should have much more in common with
smalltalk than lisp. From what I read in the past, it is supposed to
be object-oriented (more along the lines of smalltalk, not C++ or
java), and I believe it was developed (originally) by one of the
smalltalk gurus. Probably either no typing at all or dynamic typing.
Interpreted of course, but possibly compilable as well, or byte-code
compiled/interpreted, etc.
The object-oriented model is different than smalltalk... something
about "slots" in objects that you can do anything with (similar to
javascript in that respect I suppose). All in all, I wouldn't see
much of anything in common with lisp, except for broad generalities
such as being interpreted. What gave you the idea they might be
similar?
It sounded like a good idea when it was invented, but I shudder to
think what Sun has in store for the language, seeing how they chose to
map a C++ notion of "object-oriented" onto Java. Yuk.
In the same vein, can anyone contrast Forth and lisp? I've read that
Forth also supports interactive, incremental development and
encourages the building up of the language from a few basic parts.
> I've read that
> Forth also supports interactive, incremental development and
> encourages the building up of the language from a few basic parts.
More so than any other language I can think of, off the top of my
head. More so than lisp.
··············@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I've read that
>> Forth also supports interactive, incremental development and
>> encourages the building up of the language from a few basic parts.
>
> More so than any other language I can think of, off the top of my
> head. More so than lisp.
I may be way off here so I offer this with no guarantee whatever.... But...
I recall reading somewhere that Charles Moore was a student of McCarthy?