Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!prosper
From: vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: LeLisp info request: Le-Lisp is alive and well
Message-ID: <136285@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 26 May 90 19:58:49 GMT
References: <1990May2.021557.24873@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <18084@well.sf.ca.us> <8082@ilog.UUCP> <18139@well.sf.ca.us> <136167@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <2576@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic)
Organization: sun
Lines: 34
In-reply-to: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)

In article <2576@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>As for Scheme, it still lacks such things ....
>

My question is still unanswered.  I'm NOT arguing the merits or flaws of
Scheme or Common Lisp. It appears you are, but I'm not.  I wanted to know why
we need still another version of Lisp.

The original poster made an assertion that it was a good thing that Le-Lisp
was developed.  I am curious why that assertion was made. 

Are there some features of Le-Lisp that are not present in Scheme or Common
Lisp that are "good" to have?  What are those features and why are they good?
Does Le-Lisp correct some mistakes that other versions of Lisp make?  What are
those mistakes? Etc., etc.

It seems to me these are entirely reasonable questions to ask.  I'm not wedded
to either Scheme or Common Lisp.  And I'm not anit-Scheme ro Common Lisp.  If
Le-Lisp is better, I'd like to know about it.  If its raison-etre is to
provide tenure to some professor and employment to a generation of graduate
student, I'd like to know that also.

I'm seeking information, and I was under the impression that that was what
newsgroups were all about.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,

-- Vladimir
--

Vladimir G. Ivanovic			vladimir@sun.com
M/S 12-33				vladimir@prosper.ebb.eng.sun.com
Sun Microsystems, Inc.			vivanovic@sun.com