Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
From: lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: extension languages can be darn small, yet still powerfull
Message-ID: <1990Aug24.154118.22011@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu>
Date: 24 Aug 90 15:41:18 GMT
References: <9008220403.AA03028@schizo>
Organization: Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
Lines: 32

gjc@mitech.COM writes:

>Don't ever forget, Extension languages can be darned small and
>still extremely powerful IF they are lisp (scheme).

Extension languages can be powerful if they are not Lisp.

>Couple cases in point:
>(1) PDP-10 MACLISP. [...]
> [...]
>(2) GNU EMACS LISP. [...]

One could make smaller extension languages that are even more
"powerful."  Take assembly code, for example (name your favorite
processor).  Although it is not commonly used for an extension
language, it certainly could be.  And a lot more stuff has likely been
written in 8xx88 assembly code than has in MacLisp or Gnu Emacs Lisp.

My point is that there is nothing special that makes *Lisp* a great
extension language.  Some might argue that it is the "simple syntax,"
but that same simple syntax is hated by many (myself *not* included).

Actually, the best extension language would be something that is
"universal" and not tied to any one application.  REXX/AREXX serves
this purpose very well, from what I understand.  It to is a small but
powerful language, although it is certainly not lisp-like.

-- 
Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485  "Dad, don't give in to mob mentality!"
Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene                                -- Bart Simpson
   lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu     "I'm not, Son.  I'm jumping on the bandwagon."
   uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka                                    -- Homer Simpson