Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: A comment on language wars. Message-ID: <7HY9P4G@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 7 Mar 91 16:00:16 GMT References: Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 23 In article markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes: > In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In fact, I don't see how a language that isn't interpreted nor object > oriented could be said to have first class functions. > Although it is true that most LISP (and Scheme) and purely functional > language implementations have interpretors available, there is no > dependency relation between that fact and the fact that they have > first class functions. Nor are most of those languages "object > oriented". I suspect that if you remove the explicit interpreter and examined the remaining language, I will still be able to point to a part of the language and say "that's the interpreter!". That will be the part that takes a closure and executes it. In Forth terms, Lisp has an outer and an inner interpreter. You might object that this is a Bernsteinian definition of "interpreter", but I think it is a distinguishing point between languages that have first class functions and those that don't. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"