Subject: Re: dynamic redefinition of classes From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1998/11/06 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.franz,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.clos Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * "Harley Davis" <spamless_davis@spamless_ilog.com> | 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. #:Erik -- The Microsoft Dating Program -- where do you want to crash tonight?