W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Developers Guide to Semantic Web Toolkits for different Programming Languages

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:38:44 +0000
Message-Id: <82c2bbaf84b953ef7318faec04a0d4f8@reading.ac.uk>
To: semantic-web@w3.org, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

I would suggest that saying "Lisp" is a little like saying "C/C++/Java"  
-- the syntax and many of the ideas are the same, but there are some  
very real differences in fundamental principles (e.g. Lisp-1/Lisp-2 in  
the "Lisp" family). One doesn't program in "C/C++/Java", and one  
doesn't program in "Lisp", either. Wilbur is a Common Lisp SW toolkit.

The counter-argument is that "Lisp" is a common shorthand for "Common  
Lisp", but it's not something that strikes me as correct in the context  
of a document intended for public reference, particularly when there  
may be Scheme implementations of Semantic Web libraries[1].


[1] the only mention I remember is  
-0.html>, so this should be read as "may be (in future)".

On Feb 8, 2005, at 17:50, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> First, "Lisp" is not an actual programming language per se. You  
>> should say
>> "Common Lisp" (this is the ANSI X3J13 Standard). There are other  
>> dialects,
>> such as "Scheme", but I haven't seen any RDF software for those.
> Come again?  I would say that Lisp is just as much an actual  
> programming
> language as C++ or Java.  Yes, there are different dialects of Lisp  
> but so
> are there (or were there) different dialects of Java, just ask Sun and
> Microsoft.  Many other programming languages have distinct dialects;  I
> would guess that there are significant dialects of almost every widely  
> used
> programming languages.
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 18:39:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:00 UTC