Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!think!husc6!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU!dld
From: dld@F.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (David Detlefs)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Common Lisp
Message-ID: <907@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 19 Feb 88 19:59:39 GMT
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 35


Varol Akman writes:

> OK, go ahead and flame me but I'll say it anyway:
>
> It boggles my mind when people write articles like this.
> I mean, will some one tell me what do C++ and Lisp share
> other than being programming languages.
> 
> [Other random stuff.]

Well he asked for it, so here goes:

1) It boggles MY mind that anyone have the intellectual dishonesty to
make a comment like this WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE.  (Does anyone
believe for a second that he did?)

2) Many projects face the problem of picking an implementation
language.  I myself just this year was asked for advice by a group
choosing between C++ and Common Lisp.  I feel that Trickey's article
elucidated the relevant points much better than I did; I wish I had
had it to refer them to.

His comment:

> I mean, will some one tell me what do C++ and Lisp share
> other than being programming languages.

I find particularly revealing.  Why shouldn't we compare them on the
basis of their both being programming languages -- tools for getting
programs written and working.  That's what they are, not ways of life
or religious dogmas.  And that is the beauty of Trickey's article; it
compares them in a way that is admirably devoid of any appeal to
non-factual arguments.  I highly recommend it.

Dave Detlefs