From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,53c7a24d13241b98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mw@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) Subject: Re: Standadised OO Language Date: 1998/02/14 Message-ID: <6c2mtu$r4h$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324905676 Organization: --- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Howard W. LUDWIG" wrote: > [Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few > languages for which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist > but they never have matched > nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.] Actually "Lisp" is a family of languages, with considerable differences; except for the similarity of names, the above is like wondering why there are so many differences between e.g. Oberon-2, Modula-3 and Ada, since after all they do have many similarities (sometimes called "Pascal-like"). If one looks closer, one sees that this is intentionally so, since their design principles/purposes differ. There's an ANSI standard for "Common Lisp", an ISO standard for "ISLisp", and an IEEE standard for Scheme (another dialect, not "object-oriented", though some will argue that objects are poor man's replacement for first- class function closures and flexibility ;-) and there are quite a few non-standardized Lisp dialects (for details, see comp.lang.lisp and/or comp.lang.scheme). -- Marc Wachowitz