Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Why do people like C? (Was: Comparison: Beta - Lisp)
Message-ID: <Cy1E6D.44v@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <781783638snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <CxIsCw.3uq@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <782420014snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:01:25 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <782420014snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <CxIsCw.3uq@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes:
>
>> Now, why is sealing necessary for "sharing code at the class level",
>> which is what I meant my "this" to refer to?
>
>I didn't say it was necessary. I was merely implying that if Apple
>are encouraging implementors to use this feature, then we might get
>some Dylan implementations that support it. I don't know of any
>language implementations that offer such a feature, but if you can
>tell me of any, then I'd appreciate it.

You wrote:

  Partly because Dylan can (or promises to) do some things that
  no Lisps availabe to me currently support. Sharing code at the
  class level is one feature that I'm particularly hoping will be
  used in Dylan implementations for Windows.

I asked why CLOS couldn't support sharing code at the class level
and you gave me something about sealing.  I'm still wondering 
what the connection between sealing and sharing is, but you still
don't explain it.  All you say is "I didn't say it was necessary".

>> Surely it can.  For a slightly different case, consider freeze-defstruct
>> in AKCL.
>
>I don't know what that is. Could you please describe it? Thanks.

It says no more subclasses and so some things (such as the
"-p" predicates defstruct defines) can take this into account.

>> If the system lets you ignore the GUI.
>
>An implementation could still not provide a framework for the GUI.
>For example, with some platforms that offer a GUI, it's easy to use
>a window in a language without explicitly using GUI in the source
>code for your program. The implementation for the language you write
>in might create a window, and then you could just write to it using
>what appear to be I/O functions. The Windows version of XLISP works
>like that.
>
>Would that be what you'd call "ignoring the GUI"?

I don't fully understand what you're describing.

But if the system creates any windows, that's not letting me
ignore the GUI.

-- jeff
