Mark wrote:
> In the commercial sector, it is hard to find Lisp or Smalltalk people.
> Reimplementing in a more common language will, over time, reduce costs and
> make the progress of software development more predictable.
Mark:
All true. But realize that if everyone had followed this maxim we would
still be programming in COBOL and assembler ... not in Java. There was also
a time when "it didn't make business sense to program in Java" because Java
was used even less than Lisp, remember 1995, or even 1996?
I think the key is in finding how a language becomes "a more common
language", as you said. My take on it is that there must be "powerful
marketing muscles" behind "business waves" that make some sense.
Mark wrote:
> In over 30 years, I have only been involved in one commercial project
> that used lisp.
Sorry to hear that :) Some of us are trying to change that.
Anyhow, I wanted to show the subscribers how some very simple code
implements a "pattern-oriented" way of programming and *why* that might be
appealing to programmers or businesses:
* codify pattern knowledge in code (and prose)
* very quickly create pattern instances and make them interact
with each other
* constrain abstractions used in patterns to conform to a given
pattern structure (not shown in the code posted)
etc.
- Mike
_______________________________________________
patterns-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
