Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the lisp wave?
Message-ID: <4002@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Jan 91 19:21:00 GMT
References: <NETMAILR11011708110SEB1525@MVS.DRAPER.COM> <17374@csli.Stanford.EDU> <1991Jan23.080259.19816@Think.COM> <1991Jan23.094925.12728@ulrik.uio.no>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 25

In article <1991Jan23.094925.12728@ulrik.uio.no> espen@math.uio.no (Espen J. Vestre) writes:
>First, this talk about lisp being dead puzzles me.  At least in european 
>academic institutions, it doesn't seem to be dead at all. 

I don't think Lisp is dead, but I wish it were healthier.

>Second, why is it claimed that CL is "too big"?  What does that mean?  
>That applications tend to take up much space? That lisp systems take up 
>much space? 

Both complaints have been made.

>Anyway, it is certainly possible to make compact CL systems.  

I agree.

>However, harddisk (or even RAM) space is not a real problem any more, is 
>it?

Well, I could certainly use more of both, and my employers don't seem
to be about to buy them for me.  The practical consequence in Common
Lisp terms is that I can run KCL on my desk machine but have to put up
with annoying paging delays if I try one of the bigger ones.

-- jeff