From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-03-23T02:09:32+09:00 Subject: Re: Paul Graham recommends Ruby Steven Shaw writes: > Christian Neukirchen wrote: >> Navindra Umanee writes: >> There are arguments both for Lisp-1 and Lisp-2s. And while I prefer >> Lisp-1s, object-oriented languages are "better off" if they are >> Lisp-2s IMHO. > > Could you expand on why OO languages are better off as Lisp 2? Because it is more consistent. I have actually designed a primitive OO language where methods simply are "instance variables" (well, those don't exist in it either) bound to a lambda. However, all(?) ground-breaking OO languages (take Smalltalk, Self (I'm not sure about Self actually, but I think it makes a difference between an instance variable containing a block and a method), CLOS, Ruby :-)) are Lisp-2s. Lisp-1 doesn't match very well with the "message sending" paradigm, I think. -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org