Subject: Re: Will Java kill Lisp? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/09/07 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Bill Richter | "But Java has inner classes, and that's just about as good," | and no Lisp heads have taken up the challenge! I forget who wrote it, but the argument for programming languages is always one of _pragmatics_. you can implement something like closures in C, too, but it would require a lot of manual labor to use them well. the whole point with closures in Lisp and Scheme is that it is no different from other functions. | I'm just a beginner, so tell me, what can you do with closures that | would be a pain with inner classes? less typing, fewer idioms to master, better support from the framework. | I figure that Java's got something going for it, since Guy Steele's | writing Java manuals. this is technically known as an argumentum ad hominem. it isn't any more valid as an argument than its usual negative application. Guy Steele is to be admired for his excellent work, but we should admire his works based on their merit, not admire some works _because_ they are made by Guy Steele. #\Erik -- 404 You're better off without that file. Trust me.