Java是如何被Lisp启发的？ [英] How is Java inspired by Lisp?

问题描述

我们是在C ++程序员之后，我们
设法将很多关于
的内容拖到了Lisp。

• Java specspec的合着者Guy Steele

资料来源： http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html

上下文： http://people.csail.mit .edu / gregs / ll1-discuss-archive-html / msg04045.html

我今天遇到了上述报价。我得到许多独特的java（over c ++）的功能像垃圾收集最初在Lisp中找到。但是，如何用Java拖拽c ++程序员半途而知到lisp？

解决方案

项目符号列表和比较：

• 条件： Java有条件。




• 函数类型： Java没有第一类函数。




• 递归： Java支持递归。




• 动态键入： Java是静态类型。




• 垃圾回收： Java有垃圾收集功能。

Java和C ++都区分语句和表达式。



• 符号类型：Java和C ++都不支持这种语言的一部分。




• 同质性：同样，Java和C ++都不是同源的。




• 整个语言一直在使用：不再需要。

因此，唯一可以说的是，Java比C ++更接近于Lisp，这是垃圾收集，在我看来，这不是一个引人注目的足够的论据来证明Steele的引用。

结论：（主观）Guy Steele的上述报价是愚蠢的。

---

来自comp.lang.scheme的非常有说服力的报价：

您正在发布到计划组。在这里，认为Java比C ++更好，就像争论蚱蜢比树皮更好。

  — Thant Tessman，comp.lang.scheme

： - ）

"We were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp."

• Guy Steele, co-author of the Java specspec

Source : http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html

Context: http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04045.html

I came across the above quote other day. I get that many features unique to java (over c++) like garbage collection were initially found in Lisp. But how else did java drag c++ programmers half way to lisp?

解决方案

Let's take Paul Graham's famous bullet list and compare:

• Conditionals: Java has conditionals. Well, C++ had them too.

• A Function Type: Java does not have first class functions. C++ didn't have them as well.

• Recursion: Java supports recursion. C++ supported it too.

• Dynamic Typing: Java is statically typed. So was C++.

• Garbage Collection: Java has garbage collection. C++ doesn't.

• Programs composed of expressions: Both Java and C++ make a distinction between statements and expressions. So both fail to satisfy this point.

• A Symbol Type: Neither Java nor C++ supports this as a part of language. It's very easy to implement though.

• Homoiconicity: Again, neither Java nor C++ are homoiconic.

• The whole language there all the time: Nope, again.

So the only thing that you can say takes Java closer to Lisp as compared to C++ is garbage collection, which, in my opinion, is not a compelling enough argument to justify Steele's quote.

Conclusion: (subjective) Guy Steele's above-stated quote is idiotic. Period.

---

A very telling quote from comp.lang.scheme:

You're posting to a Scheme group. Around here, arguing that Java is better than C++ is like arguing that grasshoppers taste better than tree bark.
  — Thant Tessman, comp.lang.scheme

:-)

这篇关于Java是如何被Lisp启发的？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！