Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!gatech!purdue!haven!ni.umd.edu!uc780.umd.edu!cs450a03
From: cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: RE: The powerlessness of Lisp
Message-ID: <25MAR91.22001449@uc780.umd.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 91 22:00:14 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.192606.29608@linus.mitre.org> <4637:Mar2102:11:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Mar21.123512.22876@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <16060:Mar2515:41:5691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: usenet@ni.umd.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: The University of Maryland University College
Lines: 20

Dan Bernstein writes:
>p + i, as I already pointed out. You can find higher-level applications
>(e.g., byte-copying into a character buffer, which can then be written
>portably to disk and read back later) for yourself.

Any reason you can't call the buffer an array?  *(p + i) is array
addressing.

>Other points: GNU Emacs *is* written in C, with only a small amount of
>``helper'' code to implement dynamic typing.

I think the small amount of code it takes to implement dynamic typing
should count as a win for dynamic typing.  As should the large amount
of code which was written using it.

You might argue that LISP is used because it is easy to change, not
because of its runtime type-checking, but the two features work
together.

Raul Rockwell