| Author |
Code re use in lisp v smalltalk v other
|
|
| gavino 2007-03-23, 10:05 pm |
| http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/musi...lkOverview.html
This is a great read about smalltalk.
In it the author talks about how code resuse has been realised in
smalltalk.
I read that in lisp you can simply add function x to the language, and
if there is someting mroe complex add a macro.
This seems liek powerful resuse since then you extend lisp and
constantly cna build and resuse the new addition.
Is lisp then actually better for code resuse than smalltalk?
Many have told me and a few book I am reading mention how with lisp
you never wish you had function X because you jsut add it when you see
the need; and that from that lisp can copy the  features of any
paradigm or language.
To what extent can smalltalk do this? Is smalltalk's oo only way a
pureer way to do this? Can you add such functions to smalltalk as
easily as in lisp? Does the adotion of pure oo purify this and make
it easier overall when attacking tuff applicaiton problems?
Any comments/lnks/articles appreciated; esp from those who know squeak
and a lisp...thank you
| |
| Griff 2007-03-23, 10:05 pm |
| Are you more interested in adding function or adding language
features?
For example, would you like to add a new kind of a loop construct to
Smalltalk?
| |
| gavino 2007-03-23, 10:05 pm |
| I suppose adding language features would help more. Then I can use
them in anything.
Do pro programmers have huge libraries of code they glue together for
further jobs?
| |
| Griff 2007-03-23, 10:05 pm |
| Not working with LISP myself I can't say much about that.
I can say that the fact that it is file-based combined with
the ability to define interfaces to modules, you do have the
ability to abstract the functions on which you are dependent.
|
|
|
|