Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!bu.edu!rpi!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: "fine commercial lisps" vs KCL vs other ways
Message-ID: <1990Nov3.233144.23676@Think.COM>
Date: 3 Nov 90 23:31:44 GMT
References: <1990Oct26.123828.7308@cs.nott.ac.uk> <20220001@hpfcdj.HP.COM> <1353@paradigm.com>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 14

In article <1353@paradigm.com> gjc@paradigm.com writes:
>You know what would improve the state of the art of lisp implementations
>a bit? If somebody wrote a LISP front-end to GCC. 

Well, it's not GCC-specific, but it seems like Chestnut's Lisp to C
translator does most of what you say.  It also does GC (and provides ways
to control it) and generic arithmetic when declarations aren't provided.

About the only problem is that they charge about $100,000 for it.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar