RE: s-exprs + prototypes

["Anton van Straaten" <address@hidden>]

> Lisp does lock you in. It locks you into a world where you have to
> implement an object system if you want one (different than CLOS) and
> when you do, you still have these things in it that are not objects.
>
> Smug Lisp Weenies: we've taken your lambdas and now we're taking your
> s-exprs and macros. Soon there will be no leg to stand on.

Because soon you will have a variant of Lisp?  Muhahaha!

Sounds like the SmugOrOtherwiseLispWeenies will have done their job, of
communicating and propagating some of the more important and useful
characteristics of a language, and ensuring that language branches that go
in specific directions, like the one you're describing, don't lose some of
those features.

BTW, with all this talk of "objects" as the ultimate goal of all
programming, you might want to have a chat with some FunctionalWeenies or
LambdaWeenies, about the mathematical properties of languages.  For example,
I get the distinct impression you're talking about mutable objects, which
are a big no-no, with all sorts of undesirable properties.  They make
programs more difficult to reason about, analyze, optimize, and verify, and
thus more bug prone.  If it's any consolation, much of the Lisp world is
just as guilty of gratuitous mutation as any OO or imperative language.

Mutation: the final frontier...

Anton