Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:3693 comp.lang.scheme:1703 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Virtues of Lisp syntax [for extension languages] Summary: Remember where this discussion started... Message-ID: Date: 22 Sep 90 04:28:59 GMT References: <3368@skye.ed.ac.uk> <3407@skye.ed.ac.uk> <20301@well.sf.ca.us> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 13 In article <20301@well.sf.ca.us> jjacobs@well.sf.ca.us (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes: > Having watched the LISP Syntax thread for a while, I thought a little > history might be in order... > Way back in the old days, [...] LISP was an interpreted language. Extension languages, by and large, still *are* interpreted... > However, if compilation is the primary development strategy (which it > is with CL), then the LISP syntax is not particularly useful. [...] ... so the LISP syntax *remains* particularly useful in this domain. And, remember, that's where this discussion started... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com