From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: dynamic redefinition of classes Date: 1998/11/06 Message-ID: <3119352155930156@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 409039143 References: <3640D31C.EA4F9CED@student.hk-r.se> <3119265967679011@naggum.no> <36420435.A213CB84@student.hk-r.se> <71thfi$gkt$1@news1-alterdial.uu.net> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.franz,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.clos * "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. #:Erik -- The Microsoft Dating Program -- where do you want to crash tonight?