[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lightness vs. Largeness
At 02:53 PM 12/5/01, Robert Spector wrote:
an LL has to be "low overhead" -- simple expressions like
"(+ 1 2)" can run on their own.
From the discussions on the list it seems that
"programming-in-the-large" implies OO and mandatory
I don't see how "programming in the large" implies
I've written 100,0000-line Lisp applications that don't have any
I also think that OO using class-based modularity requires more
than a CLOS-style generic function-based approach, where you can
go ahead and call (and define) functions outside of the context of a
This to me implies that OO need not be "heavy".
is an LL then constitutionally incompatible with solving the problems
implied by the phrase "programming-in-the-large"?
(Or is that phrase somehow pejorative?)
I see no contradiction in postulating a light-weight language that
neatly to larger problems.