Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dalsqnt!pollux!ti-csl!pf@csc.ti.com From: pf@csc.ti.com (Paul Fuqua) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: What's a PC? (What's the best environment) Message-ID: <62959@ti-csl.CSNET> Date: 8 Nov 88 00:05:12 GMT References: <5182@louie.udel.EDU> Sender: news@ti-csl.CSNET Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas Lines: 43 Date: Thursday, November 3, 1988 2:57pm (CST) From: new at udel.EDU (Darren New) Subject: Re: What's a PC? (What's the best environment) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng In article tom@chionia.amara.uucp (Tom Doehne) writes: > >In article <396@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) writes: >>In article <197@ai.etl.army.mil> mike@ai.etl.army.mil (Mike McDonnell) writes: >> >>>The best software development environment on the planet earth is a lisp >>>machine. This is a "PC" in the generic sense. It is the quality of the >>>supporting environment that makes this so. Those of us who know and >...regrets deleted... > >> Do other people in this group feel this way as well? N.B., most if not all of the advantages of an integrated LISP environment cited in the above articles are also present in Smalltalk. That's the point: it's not the language, per se, it's the integrated environment. Lispms just seem to be better-known. And, gradually, environments for lesser languages are catching up to those that already exist for Lisp and Smalltalk (check out Saber-C). So what got Lisp and Smalltalk there first? My vote goes to the object-oriented aspect of both languages, which is also filtering out to lesser languages (I see C++ as a broader dialect of C). It also supplies real structure for your data, instead of forcing everything to look like a list. Most modern Lisps provide lists, arrays, structures, and "objects" (as in Flavors or CLOS). pf Paul Fuqua Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas CSNet: pf@csc.ti.com (ARPA too, sometimes) UUCP: {smu, texsun, cs.utexas.edu, im4u, rice}!ti-csl!pf