Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion hashtable w/o keys stored...

From: Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: hashtable w/o keys stored...
Date: 1999/01/15
Message-ID: <y8Pn2.229$oD6.15990@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 433121122
Distribution: world
References: <cxjlnj8zh33.fsf@acs1.bu.edu> <3125351611698980@naggum.no> <kQKn2.205$oD6.15990@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net> <3125416585500895@naggum.no>
X-Trace: burlma1-snr1.gtei.net 916438686 4.2.32.97 (Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:18:06 GMT)
Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:18:06 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Originator: bar...@bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin)

In article <3125416585500...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum  <e...@naggum.no> wrote:
>* Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com>
>| It may not exist in the CLOS vocabulary, but it certainly exists in the
>| OOP vocabulary.
>
>  well, what is this purported single OOP vocabulary?  is it a denial of
>  the fact that certain terms have meaning only in the context of specific
>  languages?  does it make any more sense to talk about "virtual methods"
>  in CLOS than it does to talk about "generic functions" in C++ just
>  because there's multiple inheritance from "the C++ vocabulary" and "the
>  CLOS vocabulary" into "the OOP vocabulary"?

OOP vocabulary is the terminology that someone who is familiar with a
multitude of OO languages would be expected to understand.  Just because we
happen to be in a CLOS context doesn't mean we can't make references to
features of other languages like C++.  If we can't borrow the term "virtual
function", we have to say "method that dispatches on the dynamic type",
which is unnecessarily verbose.  If someone were doing a survey of
programming languages, and there were a question like "Does your language
include virtual functions?", I would answer "yes" for Common Lisp.

However, I've discovered from past conversations that you believe it's
totally wrong to make any references or analogies between programming
paradigms (it's come up in threads comparing Lisp and Perl, for instance).
In comp.lang.lisp we must act as if no other languages exist, and woe be
unto one who lapses and mentions a term they've learned in another
environment -- the wrath of Erik will be upon them.

-- 
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Don't bother cc'ing followups to me.