EuLisp (was LISP Denotational Semantics) 
Author Message
 EuLisp (was LISP Denotational Semantics)


Quote:
(Dave De Roure) writes:
>Re standards.  Our experience suggests that there does seem to be space
>in between Scheme and Common Lisp which can be usefully occupied by a
>modern Lisp dialect.  ISLISP sounds as if its going to fall in that space
>too, and since it is pretty much post-EuLisp, it's able to inherit much
>from the EuLisp experience.  Dylan also has some conceptual commonality
>with EuLisp.  I think what we're seeing is a broad concensus about modern
>Lisp dialects (I recall Jeff Dalton making this observation), and I hope
>the standard captures this.

Would anyone be willing to summarize the differences between
Dylan, EuLisp, and ISLisp (i.e. ISO Lisp?).  If this is a crazy
request, because the significant differences are myriad, then
I retract the question.

Would the Apple Dylan people be willing to comment on why EuLisp
didn't meet their needs when they were looking around for an
object-oriented dynamic language, before they resigned themselves
to designing their own?

(I'm of course not trying to insight a flame war here.  I'm just
curious about these matters (because I want something in between
Scheme and CL, but I like standards that are popular.  (Unpopular
standards aren't very useful....)))

Thanks.

Marshall Abrams



Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:02:13 GMT  
 EuLisp (was LISP Denotational Semantics)

Quote:
> Would anyone be willing to summarize the differences between
> Dylan, EuLisp, and ISLisp (i.e. ISO Lisp?).  If this is a crazy
> request, because the significant differences are myriad, then
> I retract the question.

I'm pretty sure ISLisp is not supposed to be short for ISO Lisp.
At least it wasn't supposed to be back when the name ISLisp was
invented.  (There were political reasons for this, but maybe they
are no longer operative.)

Anyway, all of Dylan, EuLisp, and ISLisp are in roughly the same
neighborhood of language space as (Scheme - full continuations) +
a subset of CLOS.

Another language in this neighborhood is Le Lisp v 16.  It
uses the EuLisp Object System (TELOS).

EuLisp is characterized by the following:
  * Levels.
  * Modules.
  * Threads.
  * MOP.

The EuLisp definition specifies several levels.  Each level includes
the ones below.  Level 0 is roughly the size of Scheme and does not
contain all of the basic capabilities of the language.  (For instance,
there are limits on the kinds of classes you can define.)  Level 1
contains the full language.  Level 2 contains the full language plus
all of the libraries.  Level 2 is about the size of Common lisp.

There is a simple module mechanism.

There is a facility for multiple threads of control that can be
implemented in a variety of ways (eg, with or without preemptive
scheduling).

There is a metaobject protocol that is in some ways simpler and
easier to handle than the CLOS one.

EuLisp is object-oriented from the ground up, so to speak, rather
than having an OOP extension.  However, it is ordinarily single-
inheritance.  A couple of different kinds of multiple-inheritance
have been implemented.

Quote:
> Would the Apple Dylan people be willing to comment on why EuLisp
> didn't meet their needs when they were looking around for an
> object-oriented dynamic language, before they resigned themselves
> to designing their own?
> (I'm of course not trying to insight a flame war here.  ...)

There are a number of non-flame-war-inducing reasons that might
apply.

-- jeff



Fri, 22 Dec 1995 21:14:38 GMT  
 EuLisp (was LISP Denotational Semantics)

Quote:


>> Would the Apple Dylan people be willing to comment on why EuLisp
>> didn't meet their needs when they were looking around for an
>> object-oriented dynamic language, before they resigned themselves
>> to designing their own?

>We felt that we needed to have more control over the language, to evolve
>it in the ways that we felt necessary, and to break with the tradition
>where we felt it necessary to do so.

>We certainly used EuLisp as a source for the design of Dylan, and greatly
>appreciate its contribution.

I was looking for more detail....

(I hope you weren't thinking that I'm an EuLisp fan who's
offended by Apple's development of Dylan.  One might interpret
your response that way.  I know almost nothing of EuLisp.  I'm
just curious about the future of Lisp, and wish that the Lisp Of
My Dreams existed now, on my little 386sx.  Dylan looks like such
a Lisp.  Maybe EuLisp is too (but I gather it has a certain
important feature which Dylan still lacks: existence :).)

Marshall Abrams



Sat, 13 Jan 1996 02:49:41 GMT  
 EuLisp (was LISP Denotational Semantics)

Quote:
>>>>> "MA" == Marshall Abrams writes:

MA> a Lisp.  Maybe EuLisp is too (but I gather it has a certain
MA> important feature which Dylan still lacks: existence :).)

I never expected to run into the Ontological Argument on
comp.lang.lisp :-). If existence isn't a property, it's certainly not
a feature (or a bug, for that matter...)

- Jim



Sat, 13 Jan 1996 04:50:21 GMT  
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. LISP Denotational Semantics

2. LISP Denotational Semantics

3. LISP Denotational Semantics

4. Denotational semantics

5. References for denotational semantics??

6. Denotational Semantics Tools.

7. Denotational semantics using metric spaces

8. Denotational semantics using metric spaces

9. Denotational Semantics of Dylan?

10. Denotational Semantics Tools.

11. Denotational Semantics

12. Denotational Semantics for Msg. Passing

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software