Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:823 comp.lang.lisp:734
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!clyde!tk@moss.ATT.COM
From: tk@moss.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Common Lisp
Message-ID: <22026@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: 19 Feb 88 15:37:21 GMT
References: <12375473238.17.BEEBE@SCIENCE.UTAH.EDU> <206@piring.cwi.nl>
Sender: lp@clyde.ATT.COM
Reply-To: tk@moss.UUCP (Tom Kirk)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 31


  In article <206@piring.cwi.nl> varol@cwi.nl (Varol Akman) writes:
  >In article <12375473238.17.BEEBE@SCIENCE.UTAH.EDU> Beebe@SCIENCE (Nelson H.F. Beebe) writes:
  >>The latest issue of SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 23, No. 2, Feb 88,
  >>carries a very interesting article
  >>
  >>	Howard Trickey, ``C++ versus Lisp: A Case Study''
  >>
  >>which is worth reading by both C++ and Lisp devotees.
  >>-------
  >
  >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.
  >
  >Comparing the incomparables?
  >
  >Apples vs. oranges?
  >
  >Or as someone once said ''a childish disorder'' ?
  
What else need they share? Trickey's paper is a personal productivity
study comparing the utility of two good programming languages, as well
as the respective environments and tools that support them. Disciples
of either C++ or Lisp or any other language will usually claim some
productivity advantage of their favorite...so why not compare them as
directly (both objectively and subjectively, just as Trickey did) as 
possible?

In case it isn't obvious, I agree that the paper is worth reading.