Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:3647 comp.lang.scheme:1667 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!barmar From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Virtues of Lisp syntax Message-ID: <1990Sep14.214946.8678@Think.COM> Date: 14 Sep 90 21:49:46 GMT References: <3407@skye.ed.ac.uk> <20301@well.sf.ca.us> Sender: news@Think.COM Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 17 In article <20301@well.sf.ca.us> jjacobs@well.sf.ca.us (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes: >Way back in the old days, ... >LISP had two fundamental data types, CONS cells and ATOMs. ATOMs were >"indivisible", and included "interned symbols", numbers and strings. >(Arrays were added, but were less important to the underlying >concept). I don't know which "old days" you're referring to, but in the old days I remember (I learned MacLisp in 1980) arrays predated strings. PDP-10 MacLisp had just recently acquired a kludgey fake string mechanism, but there was little support for anything but input and output of them. Arrays, on the other hand, had existed since at least the early 70's. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar