Subject: Re: dynamic redefinition of classes
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1998/11/06
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.franz,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.clos
Message-ID: <>

* "Harley Davis" <>
| IMO, the C++ way of doing things is, as usual, hairy and error-prone (and
| not entirely transparent) while the typical Lisp object systems are more
| elegant.  C++ does in general have a performance advantage for low-level
| hackery, but as I'm sure someone else will be sure to say, Lisp has a
| general productivity and abstraction advantage that can lead to
| reasonably efficient overall systems.

  I'll chip in and say that Common Lisp has a significant performance
  advantage over unsupported hacks (patterns) that mostly unskilled C++
  programmers need to engage in to do advanced object-oriented stuff.

  in my experience, C++ does not perform well when things get complex.
  it's like a kid who can multiply two-digit numbers amazingly fast, but
  doesn't have the math skills that, e.g., calculus requires, so either he
  fails or he does it real slow, but still sells himself as a math wiz.

  The Microsoft Dating Program -- where do you want to crash tonight?