Lisp, Java, and C++

Chris Bitmead uid
Tue, 27 May 1997 15:03:13 +1000

>I think Java is *much* closer to Lisp than to C++.  Don't be misled by the
>strong typing.  The variable binding model is that of Lisp (in particular,
>pointers are hidden from the programmer); it's safe; it's GCed.  Because of
>the strong typing, polymorphism is more restricted than in Lisp, but it's
>entirely adequate for writing real programs.
>I guess if C++ and CLOS were your primary exposures to object-oriented
>programming, you might think that Java was more like C++.  Certainly Java's
>OOP model is not much like CLOS's.  But there have been a variety of OOP
>subsystems for Lisp, and Java is relatively close to some of them.

The most significant criteria for positioning a language, in my view
is either supports/does not support functional programming well.

As far as I can tell, Java doesn't support functional programming very
well, but then again, I havn't really tried.

>And consider this: implementing Java in Lisp would be far easier than
>implementing C++ in Lisp.  

Is there any programming task _not_ easier than implementing C++?

>Hell, if I were Franz, I would go ahead and build a
>Java implementation on top of Allegro.  They'd probably sell a lot more Java
>than CL!