Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!cepu!ucla-cs!cpd
From: cpd@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp,net.lang.st80,net.ai,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Common Lisp and Object Oriented Programming
Message-ID: <5901@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 12:00:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5901
Posted: Fri Jun  7 12:00:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 07:31:38 EDT
References: <157@harvard.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 38
Xref: linus net.lang.lisp:433 net.lang.st80:239 net.ai:2601 net.micro.mac:1631

> Macintosh, but the last I heard was you still need a Lisa to run
> techniques in a native, interactive development environment and the
> only such environment I've heard of being currently available is
> Experlisp.
> 

ExperLisp does not currently implement lexical closures.  That makes it
difficult to creat an object oriented system.

-Charlie Dolan
Subject: Re: Common Lisp and Object Oriented Programming
Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp,net.lang.st80,net.ai,net.micro.mac
Distribution: net
References: <157@harvard.ARPA>

> Is it possible to use the features in Common Lisp to do object oriented
> programming?  I know you can store functions on property lists and
> think of the property name as a message and its value as a method, but
> that doesn't provide any sort of inheritance.
> 
> The reason I ask is that, although I love Smalltalk and would rather
> use it, I don't have access to a practical Smalltalk implementation.
> We do have Berkeley Smalltalk here on the Suns, but it is really too
> slow for serious work.  Besides, what I really want is Smalltalk on my
> Macintosh, but the last I heard was you still need a Lisa to run
> Apple's Smalltalk.  What I can get for my Mac now is Experlisp, which
> is reportedly (I haven't actually seen it) similar to Common Lisp.
> Since I think that object oriented programming and packages like
> Apple's MacApp are currently the best bet for producing Macintosh-like
> programs with a finite amount of effort, I'd like to use those
> techniques in a native, interactive development environment and the
> only such environment I've heard of being currently available is
> Experlisp.
> 
> Sorry this query is so confused.  I hope someone can shed some light on
> the question.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***