On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kurt Stephens <k...@kurtstephens.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/12 12:58 PM, David Nolen wrote: > > Clojure is another Lisp that puts Objects at the bottom. Depending on > > how its implemented I don't think it needs to be complex - for example > > ClojureScript is hosted on JavaScript (which brings it's own Objects) > > and the ClojureScript compiler is only about 1200 lines of Clojure. And > > it delivers on the good onstage/backstage separation that Kiczales talks > > about. > Does Clojure, as it's designed, have the choice of not being being > implemented on top of Objects? > For example, has anybody implemented Clojure on Scheme? Would it be > smaller? > Clojure is definitely biased towards hosts which have some notion of Objects - thus it works well on the CLR, JVM, and JavaScript. I'm sure you could implement Clojure in Scheme but I think you would need to implement an object system in Scheme first - though probably something like TinyCLOS would be sufficient. I think Lisp -> Objects might not be as nice as Objects -> Lisp. The second approach, while possibly requiring more implementation work, provides users rich opportunities to manipulate the machinery backstage. In the first approach, users might not be able circumvent limitations of baked in primitives like cons. David
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
