Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!kth!sunic!dkuug!iesd!amanda
From: amanda@iesd.dk (Per Abrahamsen)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor
Message-ID: <1651@iesd.dk>
Date: 3 Apr 89 15:05:32 GMT
References: <248@usl-pc.usl.edu> <10099@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Sender: amanda@iesd.dk
Organization: Games Research, University of Aalborg, Denmark
Lines: 60
In-reply-to: gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM's message of 3 Apr 89 01:25:16 GMT


In article <10099@ihlpb.ATT.COM> gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) writes:

> The point I was trying to make is that LISP is not a common language
> base for most people.  A more procedural language such as TPU looks
> and feels more comfortable.  E.g. something like the following is
> infinitely easier for me to read than lisp.

Just what the world needs: another programming language.

Why invent a new language, when an existing (and widely used!)
language like lisp fits perfecly. If you are a programmer, you will
probably want to learn lisp anyway.

> PROCEDURE split_window
>
> [ Long TPU procedure in a extended BASIC-style language deleted... -Pa ]

Here is the same procedure in emacs lisp :-)

;; Define a new function "split_window" which takes no arguments "()".
;;
(defun split_window ()
;;
;; Online documentation of the function.
;; All functions in in emacs is documented this way.
;;
  "Split current window into two windows, one above the other.
This window becomes the uppermost of the two."
;;
;; Allow user to call this function interactively.
;;
  (interactive)
;;
;; Call the primitive function "split-window" with the default
;; arguments "nil", which happens to do exactly what we want!
;;
  (split-window nil nil))

> And the compilation of this, or any other interpretive language, can
> compact a lot of the expressions because we know how to do these
> things, whereas I don't know of anybody (I have not looked) applying
> any optimization or other speed ups to lisp based interpreters. 

Try to say that on comp.lang.lisp...
Anyway, GNU Emacs knows how to optimize (byte-compile) emacs lisp.

> Given
> the difference in speed (I know how DEC did this, the interpreter is a
> giant VAX case instruction) I would say that the EMACS I used on the
> same VAX as TPU was not very efficient.

Emacs is not optimized for VMS or VAX.
Does DEC have a version of TPU for PMAX (MIPS + Ultrix)?

> -- 
> Gregg Wonderly                             DOMAIN: gregg@ihlpb.att.com
> AT&T Bell Laboratories                     UUCP:   att!ihlpb!gregg

--
Per Abrahamsen,  amanda@iesd.dk, {...}!mcvax!diku!iesd!amanda