On 26 Jul 2000, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> SICP is excellent, more for general understanding of computing, but
> you can learn scheme from it, no doubt. For questions like this, I
> would also recommend "On Lisp" by Paul Graham.
>
> In Graham's language, lisp (or scheme) is a tool for buyilding
>
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
>
> > IA>> I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an
> > IA>> object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell
> >
> > Well, I don't know what fo
Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
>
> IA>> OmerM started something...
> IA>>
> IA>> http://iglu.org.il:8080/Zen/SchemeBook
> IA>>
>
> No, I mean dead-tree book. The thing you can read while... let's say stuck
> in traffic jam on Jabotinsky street. Something like the Camel (or maybe
> the L
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> MZ>> Let me clarify the muddy waters: in no language I'm aware of, is "if" an
> MZ>> object. In most sane languages (Scheme, Python, Smalltalk), a boolean is
> MZ>> an object. In smalltalk, a boolean has a method called ifTrue which
>
IA>> OmerM started something...
IA>>
IA>> http://iglu.org.il:8080/Zen/SchemeBook
IA>>
No, I mean dead-tree book. The thing you can read while... let's say stuck
in traffic jam on Jabotinsky street. Something like the Camel (or maybe
the Llama) book.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall
MZ>> Let me clarify the muddy waters: in no language I'm aware of, is "if" an
MZ>> object. In most sane languages (Scheme, Python, Smalltalk), a boolean is
MZ>> an object. In smalltalk, a boolean has a method called ifTrue which
Ahh... that's boring. Just another way to write the same.
--
[EMAI
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> IA>> I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an
> IA>> object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell
>
> Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I can imagine language where sytax
> cons
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ira Abramov wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
>
> > IA>> what OO is, and that is a rather personal view. I heard some people say
> > IA>> Java (which Sun dubs "pure OO") is not OO at all, since "if" statements
> > IA>> are not objects and th
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> IA>> what OO is, and that is a rather personal view. I heard some people say
> IA>> Java (which Sun dubs "pure OO", is not OO at all, since "if" statements
> IA>> are not objects and there are primitive types, others said that even
>
>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> IA>> I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an
> IA>> object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell
>
> Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I can imagine language where sytax
> cons
IA>> I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an
IA>> object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell
Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I can imagine language where sytax
constructs are objects. Even makes me curious. Good book on Scheme,
anyone
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote:
> IA>> what OO is, and that is a rather personal view. I heard some people say
> IA>> Java (which Sun dubs "pure OO") is not OO at all, since "if" statements
> IA>> are not objects and there are primitive types, others said that even
>
>
SS>> Suppose C++ has a great feature, which makes writing easily
SS>> maintainable code a brease, but is not in the "official" OO
SS>> specification. Obviously, C++ is not an OO language in that
SS>> respect, but who cares?
We can also suppose C++ hasn't some of features that are in "official" OO
Who cares?
OO is a programming design method, which attempts to make the process of
writing software and maintaing it easier than it's predecessor (structured
programming? Procedural programming? whatever). These are goals, and the
principles behind OO, in my humble opinion, are just means to an
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> Ok, if people really want this (please answer to me personally) I can
> organize a "what is OO?" symposium. Ira, can you send me the contact info
> for the guys at SGI?
One more note: I'll argue any way other people don't, so I'll have to have
your views
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ira Abramov wrote:
> b. a symposium we could organize with Vadik, Ury, Zadka, Chen, Gaal and
> other illuminaries (pun intended) of this list giving their definitions
> of OO. we may not agree but we will ALL be wiser, and it's better than
> this stupid flamewar.
>
> and bef
16 matches
Mail list logo
