Xref: utzoo comp.lang.scheme:1574 comp.lang.lisp:3545
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: extension languages can be darn small, yet still powerfull
Message-ID: <1990Aug26.205018.18067@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 26 Aug 90 20:50:18 GMT
References: <9008220403.AA03028@schizo> <1990Aug24.154118.22011@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25

In article <1990Aug24.154118.22011@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu> lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) writes:
>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).

Simplicity is nice, but extensibility is the much more important
virtue of Lisp syntax.  (The two are of course related to some
degree.) Lisp's other main advantage as an extension language is its
dynamic typing, which greatly reduces the effort required to make
small changes to a program's behavior.

I have found that those who "hate" Lisp syntax almost invariably have
never used a powerful Lisp development environment such as Symbolics
Genera, or even Harlequin's LispWorks.  Indeed, the "haters" usually
have never used any Lisp system beyond the 1962-vintage Lisp 1.5 that
most of us oldsters were introduced to in undergraduate school.
Opinions formed in ignorance carry little weight with me.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.