Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!enea!tut!jh
From: jh@tut.fi (Juha Hein{nen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: No market, etc
Message-ID: <2248@korppi.tut.fi>
Date: 28 Dec 87 07:57:30 GMT
References: <4851@well.UUCP>
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 17

In article <4851@well.UUCP> jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:

>end product.  Common Lisp killed this potential by becoming just another
>programming language, sort of a Pascal with parentheses.

Wirth probably don't like your comparison.  Considering its size,
Common Lisp would better relate to Ada.

Why this argument about Common Lisp?  Lisp doesn't live or die with
Common Lisp or is someone forcing it at you?  We have been using
Scheme for more that a year and are extremely happy with it: no
problems with size or complexity.
-- 
	Juha Heinanen
	Tampere Univ. of Technology
	Finland
	jh@tut.fi (Internet), tut!jh (UUCP)