|[4 earlier articles]|
|Implementing classes firstname.lastname@example.org (Jatin Bhateja, Noida) (2005-09-02)|
|Re: Implementing classes Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2005-09-04)|
|Re: Implementing classes email@example.com (2005-09-10)|
|Re: Implementing classes darnottJUNK@rogers.com (Doug Arnott) (2005-09-11)|
|Re: Implementing classes firstname.lastname@example.org (Oliver Bandel) (2005-09-11)|
|Re: Implementing classes email@example.com (2005-09-14)|
|Re: Implementing classes firstname.lastname@example.org (Julian Stecklina) (2005-09-14)|
|From:||Julian Stecklina <email@example.com>|
|Date:||14 Sep 2005 21:24:35 -0400|
|References:||05-09-011 05-09-035 05-09-048|
Oliver Bandel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Isn't LISP's OO-System the most powerfull?
Common Lisp supports CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System. It supports
multiple inheritance, multiple dispatch (think methods specialized on
more than one class). Classes can be changed at runtime. You can
change what class something is an instance of after it is created. The
order and way how methods override each other is completely
customizable by the programmer. It implemented most of Aspect-Oriented
Programming before the term was even coined... and is (in most
implementations) compiled and fast.
And (as I mentioned before) there is a book dealing with its
"The Art of The Meta-Object Protocol"
When someone says "I want a programming language in which I
need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop. - Alan Perlis
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.