Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:1579 comp.sys.xerox:394
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!oliveb!apple!mikel@apple.com
From: mikel@apple.com (mikel evins)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.sys.xerox
Subject: Re: ENVOS COMMON LISP
Message-ID: <1003@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 89 06:22:09 GMT
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 25
References:<7237@siemens.UUCP> <654@arisia.Xerox.COM>

In article <654@arisia.Xerox.COM> fischer@arisia.Xerox.COM (Ronald A. 
Fischer) writes:
> Consider how much shorter your development time
> might be with a better set of development tools or application
> toolkit.

I won't claim that Allegro CL on the Mac has the richness of a Symbolics 
or Xerox Lisp machine; I've had my hands on a Symbolics and on TI machines 
(though, regrettably, not a Xerox), and I know something of what I'm 
missing. I will say, though, that, for a personal computer, or 
microcomputer, Allegro is a very nice programming environment. Yes, it has 
gc, it has a nice windowing debugger with a view of the execution stack, 
and inspectors for all kinds of variables, including system variables not 
visible in most Mac programming environments; it is very well integrated 
with the Mac interface toolbox. 

In short, for a personal computer (as opposed to workstation) 
implementation, it's pretty nice, and real fast, and quite robust, so far 
as I've seen so far, though not yet a match for Lisp machines. 

Just thought I'd put in a good word for the underdog.

(I hope the identity of my employer won't bias readers with regard to my 
integrity; I liked Allegro CL a long time before I had any idea Apple was 
going to buy Coral).