What are the major differences to CLOS?
And what are the major differences between LOOPS and CommonLOOPS (besides Interlisp vs CL)?
[flagged]
Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book unfortunately doesn't mention CLOS, nor does it give any hints about the differences. But the focus of the book is obviously on Lisp Object-Oriented Programming, not on Expert Systems. A comparison with CLOS is therefore apparent.
The only way to improve GenAI-slop comments is to delete them, please stop polluting HN. EDIT: The comments I was referring to got sneakily edited. Another thing that is not nice to do.
[deleted]
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book unfortunately doesn't mention CLOS, nor does it give any hints about the differences. But the focus of the book is obviously on Lisp Object-Oriented Programming, not on Expert Systems. A comparison with CLOS is therefore apparent.
The only way to improve GenAI-slop comments is to delete them, please stop polluting HN. EDIT: The comments I was referring to got sneakily edited. Another thing that is not nice to do.
Providing an answer would have been more helpful.
EDIT: still no helpful contribution, just nagging.
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#14LOOPS was one of the early frameworks for AI programming (-> for Knowledge-based Systems -> especially Expert Systems) in Lisp, which also made use of the new graphical user interface of the Interlisp-D Lisp Machine from Xerox. Interlisp-D was a combination of operating system and development environment, and was developed for the same computers, which also ran Smalltalk. Both were image-based and managed the source…
I was at a presentation on LOOPS in London given by Dan Bobrow and Mark Stefik, they were pitching it as an equivalent framework to KEE or ART as you describe. They had a good showcase application called Truckin' [1] that made good use of all the features of LOOPS.
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#15LOOPS was one of the early frameworks for AI programming (-> for Knowledge-based Systems -> especially Expert Systems) in Lisp, which also made use of the new graphical user interface of the Interlisp-D Lisp Machine from Xerox. Interlisp-D was a combination of operating system and development environment, and was developed for the same computers, which also ran Smalltalk. Both were image-based and managed the source…
I was at a presentation on LOOPS in London given by Dan Bobrow and Mark Stefik, they were pitching it as an equivalent framework to KEE or ART as you describe. They had a good showcase application called Truckin' [1] that made good use of all the features of LOOPS. [1] https://www.markstefik.com/?page_id=359
Some more background https://larrymasinter.net/stefik-loops.pdf and https://www.markstefik.com/?page_id=334
I think LOOPS was limited by only being available on Interlisp-D related systems. Common LOOPS was supposed to be portable, but I remember it only in the context of the CLOS development as a stepping stone, but not as a product or environment like LOOPS.
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#16What are the major differences to CLOS?
LOOPS (Lisp object-oriented programming systems) is written in Interlisp for the Interlisp-D environment, was a Xerox product and is from around 1981.
CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) is a general OOP standard extension for Common Lisp. A specification was proposed in 1987/88. CLOS was included in the Common Lisp standard and widely implemented by various implementations.
Both were a "system" -> meaning that it is available and programmable also at runtime.
LOOPS is an actual piece of software with a GUI, which integrates into the Interlisp-D development environment.
LOOPS was based on message sending, classes, methods, interactive changes to the object system.
CLOS does not use message sending, but calling generic functions with multi-methods and multiple dispatch.
LOOPS supports Access-oriented Programming with Active Values. Demons can act based on access to objects. CLOS has no direct support for that. Maybe partial (-> :before & :around &:after methods in CLOS).
LOOPS includes a rule-system. CLOS systems have that as extensions. It's not a part of CLOS itself.
LOOPS includes graphical & menu tools to browse and edit objects. CLOS systems have some of that as extensions, depending on the implementation.
LOOPS was a programming system for knowledge-based systems, like Expert Systems. CLOS was not designed for that, but such programming systems were also developed for Common Lisp, some using CLOS. Example: KnowledgeWorks from LispWorks.
LOOPS was later rewritten as CommonLOOPS for Common Lisp. The software "Portable Common LOOPS" (PCL) then was further developed into a portable (and widely ported) and complete prototype implementation of CLOS + MOP.
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#17What are the major differences to CLOS?
LOOPS (Lisp object-oriented programming systems) is written in Interlisp for the Interlisp-D environment, was a Xerox product and is from around 1981. CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) is a general OOP standard extension for Common Lisp. A specification was proposed in 1987/88. CLOS was included in the Common Lisp standard and widely implemented by various implementations. Both were a "system" -> meaning that it is av…
Thanks. I'm mostly interested in the OO features. I assumed that LOOPS was essentially an OO extension of Interlisp (and thus a precursor of CLOS) due to the title. Does it really do "message sending", or is it rather like Smalltalk, which does "normal" method dispatch and call, but where the term "message sending" is use for this?
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOOPS (Lisp object-oriented programming systems) is written in Interlisp for the Interlisp-D environment, was a Xerox product and is from around 1981. CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) is a general OOP standard extension for Common Lisp. A specification was proposed in 1987/88. CLOS was included in the Common Lisp standard and widely implemented by various implementations. Both were a "system" -> meaning that it is av…
Thanks. I'm mostly interested in the OO features. I assumed that LOOPS was essentially an OO extension of Interlisp (and thus a precursor of CLOS) due to the title. Does it really do "message sending", or is it rather like Smalltalk, which does "normal" method dispatch and call, but where the term "message sending" is use for this?
The answer would depend on what you think "message sending" is and why you think Smalltalk does not support "message sending".
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I'm mostly interested in the OO features. I assumed that LOOPS was essentially an OO extension of Interlisp (and thus a precursor of CLOS) due to the title. Does it really do "message sending", or is it rather like Smalltalk, which does "normal" method dispatch and call, but where the term "message sending" is use for this?
The answer would depend on what you think "message sending" is and why you think Smalltalk does not support "message sending".
Meanwhile I have had a chance to skim the book and I have reason to believe that OO in LOOPS is solved very similarly to how it is in ST-76 and 80, i.e. virtual method dispatch via selector and calling a compiled method. A selector is simply the method signature, even if some people in the Smalltalk community refer to it as a "message". In contrast, there was actually something like message passing in Smalltalk-72, albeit synchronous.
Re: Medley Loops: The Basic System (Lisp Object-Oriented Programming System) [pdf]
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was at a presentation on LOOPS in London given by Dan Bobrow and Mark Stefik, they were pitching it as an equivalent framework to KEE or ART as you describe. They had a good showcase application called Truckin' [1] that made good use of all the features of LOOPS. [1] https://www.markstefik.com/?page_id=359
Some more background https://larrymasinter.net/stefik-loops.pdf and https://www.markstefik.com/?page_id=334 I think LOOPS was limited by only being available on Interlisp-D related systems. Common LOOPS was supposed to be portable, but I remember it only in the context of the CLOS development as a stepping stone, but not as a product or environment like LOOPS.
I ran Common LOOPS in AKCL on a 386 PC. It was just an object system for programming, it didn't have a Frame System or Rule Engine as well like LOOPS.
My previous environment had been Franz Lisp on the Atari ST. My copy of the Franz sources was missing flavors so I wrote my own object system for it that looked a bit like New Flavors but with a frame system built in as well. My binding to GEM from Lisp made use of the object system as well and the repl was in a GEM window.