Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!amdahl!JUTS!kpc00 From: kpc00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (kpc) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Scheme is unnecessarily biased towards lists Message-ID: Date: 29 Sep 90 04:54:38 GMT References: <9009200822.AA02949@vis.> <541@roo.UUCP> Sender: kpc00@ccc.amdahl.com Organization: my-organization Lines: 25 In-reply-to: mark@parc.xerox.com's message of 25 Sep 90 06:20:04 GMT In article <541@roo.UUCP> mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) writes: That is a lot of people who all have to talk, and change their code, everytime one of them has a new type to add. It is this sort of thing that a good OO language avoids, and that using an OO style within a non-OO language can't avoid. Scheme loses. OK, so the question is positively screaming to be asked: What's a good OO LISP? ... or did I come into this thread late and/or is the question inappropriate? (This being, after all, c.l.s.) Any CLOS or Flavors adherents? xlisp? What's out there, and what isn't out there that should be? What kinds of OO LISP variants are there? If an OO LISP were such a "good OO language", would it no longer be LISP? -- If you do not receive a reply from me, please resend your mail; occasionally this site's mail gets delayed. Neither representing any company nor, necessarily, myself.