[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:
I think 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 types.

I don't see how "programming in the large" implies "mandatory types".
I've written 100,0000-line Lisp applications that don't have any type

I also think that OO using class-based modularity requires more overhead
than a CLOS-style generic function-based approach, where you can just
go ahead and call (and define) functions outside of the context of a class.
This to me implies that OO need not be "heavy".

Question:  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 scales
neatly to larger problems.