Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!cambridge.apple.com!alms From: alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: So who's really using LISP? Message-ID: Date: 12 Feb 91 14:38:56 GMT References: <1227@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> <1991Feb11.204514.19880@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com Distribution: comp Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA Lines: 29 In-reply-to: phil@Neon.Stanford.EDU's message of 11 Feb 91 20:45:14 GMT In article <1991Feb11.204514.19880@Neon.Stanford.EDU> phil@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Phil Stubblefield) writes: In contrast, it seems that Scheme is to Common Lisp what the new RISC wave is to the VAX. Scheme seems like a cry of "Enough already!" to the complexities of Common Lisp, although I know far too little about Scheme to ascibe motives to its designers. This is an interesting comparison, but I think there's an important difference to keep in mind. In theory, no one is supposed to have to write much RISC assembler code. Everyone is supposed to write in a "higher level language" (read as: "C"). Only the compiler authors need to know about the arcane simplicity of the instruction set. In contrast, Lisp (whether Common Lisp or Scheme) is supposed to be a language that people actually use day to day for programming. The common complaint about Scheme is that it is too small for real work, that it needs lots of libraries. I think the problem with Common Lisp is a combination of size, redundancy, and inconsistancy. So, maybe there *is* a parallel after all :-) (BTW, I program in Common Lisp almost exclusively, and would hate to have to switch to a non-Lispish language.) Congratulations! -andrew --