[gordianknot]

I've never looked at CLOS. But, what I mean is the "dominant metaphor," which I suspect is still lists.

I'll just go through my probably plebeian understanding. Arrays are to lists as hashtables are to objects. An array, in my mind, is a list that only contains one type and is indexed with enumerated integers. On the other hand a list can contain any type, but is also indexed with enumerated integers.

In JavaScript:

  array = [1, 2, 3]
  list = ["one", [[array], 3]]
  array[0] == 1
  list[20] = 23 // list indices aren't necessarily a linear enumeration

Of course, arrays and lists are both technically Arrays in JavaScript (a bad naming choice; I'd have called them Lists). Now a hashtable is typically just a list that uses strings for indices instead of integers.

  hashtable = {
    "today":20080403,
    future:function(x) { return this.today + x }
  }

A "method" is just a value that happens to be a function. Usually hashtable-oriented languages choose to abstract away the string, and treat it as a variable.

  hashtable["today"] == hashtable.today
  hashtable.method(23)

Like with lists/arrays, JavaScript gets hashtables/objects almost exactly right, but again is subject to some questionable naming choices.

RE: trees and graphs -- I was getting at the relationships between nodes, not the actual computations, but I'm not comfortable enough with the terminology to explain exactly what I meant.

[edu]

Ok, I think I get you. But then I think you can't categorize programming languages this way, the default data-structures provided by the language don't characterize it. In fact, it seems to me that you like most JavaScript because it's object oriented, it's dynamic typing and functions are first-class. Features that others languages lack, and not because the "dominant metaphor" is the hash. Casually in JavaScript the objects are built with hashes (at least apparently), and can be easily extended.

It's a fun thread :D

[gordianknot]

Built-in data structures are a big point of categorization of langs on my end. To me, the defining feature of Java is its classical structure. If you got rid of classes, you'd have a different language (in the interface sense). And interface is really all I'm talking about.

I'm basically just asserting that objects (should) == hashtables. This is quite literal in JavaScript. Other languages bend the metaphor in different directions, and obscure it to that no one even knows what "object-oriented" really means beyond particular idiosyncratic syntax in this language or that.

PG of course talked about this before, in Why Arc Isn't Especially Object-Oriented:

> I've done a lot of things (e.g. making hash tables full of closures) that would have required object-oriented techniques to do in wimpier languages ...

I'd argue that he was employing genuine object-oriented techniques, but just didn't have classical syntax and didn't consider what he had an "object." Other languages make a point about it, and use special syntax, which fogs the whole thing. Perhaps some people in "OO" mindsets have the kind of naivete that C-only hackers I've met have about first-class functions.

Actually, I just realized the whole reason C++, Java, C#, and co. have "methods" in the first place is just compensation for not having first-class functions you can stick in a hashtable.

[anamax]

If objects == hash tables, any language with decent hash tables, including lisp, has objects that you're perfectly happy with. Lisp also has other data types, but their existence means that lisp has more power, not less.

[anamax]

> But, what I mean is the "dominant metaphor," which I suspect is still lists.

That tells us more about the basis for your suspicions than it does about lisp.

It's okay to like javascript more than you like lisp. It's also okay to be mostly ignorant of lisp. However, it's poor form to make up things to "support" those positions.