Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:849 comp.lang.lisp:743
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!munnari!otc!metro!ipso!runx!colinm
From: colinm@runx.ips.oz (Colin McCormack)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Common Lisp
Message-ID: <1378@runx.ips.oz>
Date: 25 Feb 88 18:54:29 GMT
References: <12375473238.17.BEEBE@SCIENCE.UTAH.EDU> <206@piring.cwi.nl> <22026@clyde.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: colinm@runx.OZ (Colin McCormack)
Organization: RUNX  Un*x Timeshare. Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 22


  In article <206@piring.cwi.nl> varol@cwi.nl (Varol Akman) writes:
  >......
  >I mean, will some one tell me what do C++ and Lisp share
  >other than being programming languages.
  >......

There was an paper a few years ago which demonstrated that lisp and algol are
similar in some respects at a higher level than the syntactic (being functional
programming languages for example).  I have always thought that this removed
the "lots of irritating single parentheses" criticism some people feel compelled
to level at lisp.  What applied to lisp 1.5 and algol probably extends to 
common lisp and C++, and raises some interesting questions about the degree to
which the standard syntax employed by lisp impacts upon lisp's utility and
perhaps lisp programmer productivity.  To this extent I can see value in the
paper by Trickey which provoked varol to ask the above question.

If anybody doesn't have the reference, I'll perform another search for it 
through my self ordering filing system.

 Colin.
Internet: colinm@runx.ips.oz.au    UUCP: uunet!runx.ips.oz.au!colinm