Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!corton!inria!seti!margaux.inria.fr!delacour
From: delacour@margaux.inria.fr (Vincent Delacour)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Common Lisp, SOME, EVERY...
Message-ID: <1954@seti.inria.fr>
Date: 23 Feb 91 11:25:51 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.065508.28609@cs.columbia.edu> <47946.27c2d8d3@ccvax.ucd.ie> <1991Feb22.210020.7319@aero.org>
Sender: news@seti.inria.fr
Organization: INRIA Rocquencourt France
Lines: 20

In article <1991Feb22.210020.7319@aero.org> srt@aero.org (Scott "TCB" Turner) writes:
>eweb@ccvax.ucd.ie writes:
> [...]
>A language that has a 1000 built-in functions (constructs) is doomed.
>People don't have the cognitive mechanisms to deal with that number
>and variety of mechanisms.  The result is that each person uses their
> [...]
>					-- Scott Turner

This, surely, is false. Many languages have more than 1000 words, and it is
no problem at all. Do you by any chance consider programming in any language 
without the libraries ? In C or Ada there are much of those, and it is no 
harm if you don't use both of them. Documentation helps you find the one
you want. It is a good thing to specify what a library does, because it 
helps portability. I have an example, just everyday life : /bin/pr
does not behave the same on Suns and Vaxes (Ultrix) : this is a pain when 
you use simple shell scripts on both machines. I do like format working 
the same way in both Common Lisps. 

	[vd]