Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!mincy
From: mincy@think.COM (Jeffrey Mincy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: No market, etc
Message-ID: <14218@think.UUCP>
Date: 27 Dec 87 09:48:48 GMT
References: <4851@well.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@think.UUCP
Reply-To: mincy@godot.think.com.UUCP (Jeffrey Mincy)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 39

In article <4851@well.UUCP> jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:
>Skef Wholey (no "r") writes:
>>The Common Lisp designers were foresighted
>>enough to design the language so that implementations on such stock
>>hardware could be reasonably efficient.

>Gee, I hate to get back into character assasination, but this is pure bogus B.S.

Actually, it is not bogus.

>Perhaps we have different views of what constitutes "stock hardware".  If
>you micro-code it for Lisp, it's not stock.  Stock consists of VAX, 680x0, INTEL
>80x8x, Gould, Prime, WE 3200, etc.

No, skef understands what "stock hardware" is.

>I would certainly like to see any evidence that you can produce that shows that
>any consideration was given to stock hardware.  Gabriel & Brooks "A Critique..."
>certainly says otherwise, as does my own reading and interpretation.

There is nothing in common lisp that can not be implemented efficiently.
It is only a matter of programming, and understanding.  

The only thing that common lisp (any lisp for that matter) requires that
stock hardware does not have is type tags.  A few other things like
microcode for doing cdr-coded lists, and pointer chasing for incremented
gc's are nice, but not neccessary.

I used to work at data general (maker of the "stock hardware" MV series),
where I worked in the common lisp group.  I have thought about these issues.

I'll be more than happy to talk about individual features of common lisp,
and how they can be implemented efficiently on stock hardware.  

> Jeffrey M. Jacobs


-- jeff
seismo!godot.think.com!mincy