Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!lasso.UUCP!ralph
From: ralph@lasso.UUCP (Ralph P. Sobek)
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: Xerox 11xx vs. Symbolics 36xx vs. ...
Message-ID: <8609231101.AA19031@inria.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 01:29:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: inria.8609231101.AA19031
Posted: Thu Sep 25 01:29:19 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 05:09:06 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa

I enjoyed all the discussion on the pluses and minuses of these and other
lisp machines.  I, myself, am an Interlisp user.  Those who know a
particular system well will prefer it over another.  All these lisp systems
are quite complex and require a long time, a year or so, before one achieves 
proficiency.  And as any language, human or otherwise, one's perception of 
one's environment depends upon the tools/semantics that the language provides.

I have always found Interlisp much more homogeneous than Zetalisp.  The
packages are structured so as to interface easily.  I find the written
documentation  also much more structured, and smaller, than the number of
volumes that come with a Symbolics.  Maybe, Symbolics users only use the
online documentation and thus avoid the pain of trying to find something
in the written documentation.  The last time I tried to find something in
the Symbolics manuals -- I gave up, frustrated! :-)

Interesting will be the future generation of lisp machines, after Common
Lisp.

	Ralph P. Sobek

UUCP:	mcvax!inria!lasso!ralph@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
ARPA:	sobek@ucbernie.Berkeley.EDU	(automatic forwarding)
BITNET:	SOBEK@FRMOP11