Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ut-sally!seismo!mcvax!enea!kuling!martin
From: martin@kuling.UUCP (Erik Martin)
Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Against the Tide of Common LISP
Message-ID: <992@kuling.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Jun-86 21:11:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: kuling.992
Posted: Wed Jun 25 21:11:37 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 09:40:38 EDT
References: <1311@well.UUCP> <3827@utah-cs.UUCP> <1316@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: martin@kuling.UUCP (Per-Erik Martin)
Distribution: net
Organization: Dep. of Computer Systems, Upsala University, Sweden
Lines: 32

In article <1316@well.UUCP> jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:
>
>In <3827@utah-cs.UUCP>, Stanley Shebs responds to
>my original article, <1311@well.UUCP> jjacobs@well.UUCP...
>...

>>>  I think the only thing they left out was FEXPRs...
>
>My error here; FEXPRs are easily duplicated. What is really left out is
>MACROs, i.e. access to the actual form.

What? MACROs left out? Explain plz.

>It's not a matter of "broken", it's a matter of incomplete.  How much time, 
>effort and money will it take before a "complete" implementation that doesn't 
>derive from SPICE will appear?
>...
>recreate LISP in C to get decent performance for their ES shells.  The only
>"non-broken" versions I am aware of are re-written SPICE!  It's hard to
>...

What's wrong with an implementation derived from SPICE if it is complete?
The implementation we have (under TOPS-20) is derived from Spice and works
fine. It fast enough an lacks only complex numbers (so far, but I don't miss 
them). It's not as fast as Good ol' MacLisp but on the other hand, the 
compiler  haven't been trimmed in ten years (as a mather of fact, the compiler
is the weakest part of it, so far (again)).

				PEM
-- 
Per-Erik Martin,  Computing Science Dep., Uppsala University, Sweden
UUCP: martin@kuling.UUCP  (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!martin)