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: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Standadised OO Language Date: 1998/02/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324831884 References: <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net> <34E48B7B.2A5D@lmco.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 887397343 2474 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Howard W. LUDWIG wrote: > Perhaps some specific dates and details would help: > > CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) > 1994-12-08 ANSI X3.226:1994 > ---------- has not become an ISO standard To be precise (this is the Ada newsgroup after all :-), one should say "Common Lisp", not CLOS, as CLOS is just an object system sitting on top of the objectless ANSI CL subset. > ISLISP (which I know very little about and haven't kept up with any > details, > other than it is supposed to be neither a subset nor a superset > of CLOS!!!) > 1997-??-?? ISO 13816:1997 > ---------- has not become an ANSI standard Never finished, supposedly based on EuLisp, a nice clean Lisp which never went anywhere. Its a sort of reaction to the fact that Common Lisp was originally an all-American, or rather all-USA grass roots effort to synthesize a Lisp out of the extant US Lisps. EuLisp was a brand new design somewhere between Scheme and Common Lisp in the design space. Some of the story is in the HOPL-II proceedings. > [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.] Last time I looked ISO Lisp wasn't finished, so I'm not sure if this is true. I'll look at the ISO web page when I have a web connection. > > Ada 95 has been a published ISO standard for 3 years now (well, after > two > more days, actually :), and this version is a revision of a previous ISO > standard. Mature compilers from several vendors for several > [understatement] > platforms are available in a _validated_ form. The validation process > for > Ada 95 compilers has been growing in rigor, following a transition time > of > relative laxness from Ada 83 to Ada 95. GNAT, which runs on a wide > variety > of platforms, implements the full (including all optional annexes) > language > and passes _all_ relevant validation tests. > There is no mechanism in place to assure compliance of compilers to the > standard (like Ada validation). This is a big plus for Ada, much more important IMO than whether an ANSI or ISO standard exists. > Since it is expected > that a revision to the C standard will be approved in 1999 or 2000 and > C++ has been intricately coupled in structure with C [which is a whole > other issue and a can of worms in itself], the C++ folks are already > talking about mechanisms for C++ compiler vendors to modify their C++ > compilers to handle the revisions to the C standard without adjusting > the C++ standard!?#! Excellent point, which I hadn't really thought of. Of course, it may also entail some slight modification to Annex B of Ada 95. As Robert Dewar pointed out, none of this is likely to sway anyone who has already decided that they "hate" language X, where X is Ada, C++, Lisp, or whatever. I know I prefer Ada over C++, but C++ has some nice ideas too. -- Brian