Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!xfer.kren.nm.kr!mr.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!torn!kwon!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!j2lynn
From: j2lynn@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (James F'jord Lynn)
Subject: Re: Java vs lisp (was: Re: Prolog vs. Lisp)
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Message-ID: <E84p94.n4q@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:39:03 GMT
References: <3340DFEC.3C0F@netvision.net.il> <5huud5$fkt@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <ddyer-0304971121190001@192.0.2.1> <scf4tdnerjs.fsf@infiniti.PATH.Berkeley.EDU>
Nntp-Posting-Host: noether.math.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:45235 comp.lang.java.advocacy:7768 comp.lang.lisp:26322

Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa@infiniti.PATH.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>If there where two major developers of Java instead of one and each of
>them had developed its own flavor of 'native' interface,

  Then they would cease to be Java vendors.  The JNI is a standard part of
 Java the runtime (and has little to do with the language as this thread is
 about).

>saying the same for Java.  The truth is that, given an implementation
>of Common Lisp, its "connectivity to anything non lisp" (which means
>C) is very wel defined and developed.

   Ugh.  This is worse than the "every language is touring complete" arguments.

-- 
Royalty free widgets - http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~j2lynn/java.html
