Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!tolstoy!mhcoffin
From: mhcoffin@tolstoy.uwaterloo.ca (Michael Coffin)
Subject: Re: Generecity and static/dynamic typing
Message-ID: <1991Mar22.230913.5558@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watserv1.waterloo.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <595@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <2840@enea.se> <6703:Mar1812:01:2791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Mar18.143601.13385@watmath.waterloo.edu> <3444@litchi.bbn.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1991 23:09:13 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <3444@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>mhcoffin@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Michael Coffin) writes:
>>And, although it's hard to document, it would surprise me a
>>lot if a competent elisp programmer isn't several times as productive
>>as a competent C programmer.
>No -- it depends on the problem being solved.  Seen any Lisp device drivers or
>avionics systems?  Got a good (fast!) DES implementation in Lisp?

Granted.  I should have been more clear.  There are certainly problems
with real-time constraints for which nothing but assembly language or
its moral equivalent is fast enough.  My sloppy response was
to the rhetorical question "If dynamically typed languages are so
good, why don't you write emacs in one?"  I was just pointing out that
GNU emacs *is* written mostly in lisp and that it seems to be a good
language for the purpose.

Michael Coffin				mhcoffin@watmsg.waterloo.edu
Dept. of Computer Science		office: (519) 885-1211
University of Waterloo			home:   (519) 725-5516
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1