Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.genetic,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c++
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Lisp versus C++ for AI. software
Message-ID: <nagleDyprJ3.510@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3250E6C3.3963@eis.uva.es> <3252DB5E.5495@sybase.com> <3253F13C.FF6D5DF@elwoodcorp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 19:01:51 GMT
Lines: 16
Sender: nagle@netcom6.netcom.com
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!chronos.syr.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!nagle
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:41212 comp.ai.genetic:9790 comp.ai.neural-nets:33787 comp.lang.lisp:22989 comp.lang.c++:216710

"Howard R. Stearns" <howard@elwoodcorp.com> writes:
>I have to disagree.  Common Lisp is ANSI standardized, and there are many fine
>implementations that support the standard.  My experience and understanding of C++ is
>that the commonality between implementations is far less than that guaranteed by ANSI
>Common Lisp.  

     He's right.  ANSI C code is quite portable, and Common LISP code is
quite portable, but C++ is still in flux.  There's lots of little
stuff that's gone in since the ARM, and various compilers have various
subsets of the new features.  The ANSI committee needs to get the
standard out the door while people still care about it.

     Java may be the next AI language.  Java is actually closer to LISP
than is generally realized.

					John Nagle
