Re: s-exprs + prototypes

[Steve Dekorte <address@hidden>]

On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at 04:48 PM, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Prototypes may be more flexible than classes in some ways, but if 
> that's the
> only model that a language provides, it still locks you into a 
> particular
> object system.

I wonder how the Self group implemented a ST in Self. :-)

> Given all this, a question that could be asked, which I do mainly
> rhetorically and for thought-provoking purposes, is why a language 
> would
> implement something as simple as a pair in terms of a much more complex
> structure, such as an OO object or class?

It's a good question. My answer is "consistency".

> Isn't that a little like implementing a scooter by strapping a platform
> with handlebars to the top of an SUV?

I don't think so because it leads to more consistency therefore and 
overall simplicity.
As soon as you want to implement anything complex in LISP, you're going 
to, IMO, end up implementing objects. And then you've broken the 
uniformity, so you're back to square one.

Cheers,
Steve
Io, a small language: http://www.iolanguage.com/