Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.ai.nat-lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!night.primate.wisc.edu!aplcenmp!hall
From: hall@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall)
Subject: Re: Future of OONLP?
Message-ID: <DqMzHM.39J@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
Organization: JHU/APL Research Center, Hopkins P/T CS Faculty
References: <4lnrou$h06@crchh327.rich.bnr.ca> <3180B324.65D3@cling.gu.se> <jmrst32-2904961334050001@ehdup-n-5.rmt.net.pitt.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 18:32:10 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:21450 comp.ai.nat-lang:4883

In article <jmrst32-2904961334050001@ehdup-n-5.rmt.net.pitt.edu>
jmrst32@pop.pitt.edu (Jim Rankin) writes: 
>Changing the subject somewhat, do any of you see definitive advantages to
>using an OO programming language to do AI/NLP research, as compared to
>more traditional AI/NLP languages like Lisp/Scheme/Prolog/etc.?  

Also, note that, assuming by "Lisp" you mean "Common Lisp", Lisp *is*
an OO programming language. It is like C++ and Dylan, and unlike
Smalltalk and Java, in the sense that the OO parts are optional to
some extent -- you can write methods/functions that are not part of a
class if you want. It is like C++ and Dylan and unlike Smalltalk and
Java in the sense that multiple inheritance is supported. 

Many people would say that the OO capabilities of CLOS (the Common
Lisp Object System) are more advanced than C++ or Java, although the
concept of data protection in CLOS is dramatically different. 

See the section on CLOS in my Lisp WWW page for a quick intro:
<http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp.html>
						- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
