[Ecls-list] Re: Decimal Numbers

[Julian Stecklina]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:42:44 -0400
Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa at cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

> I do not think the evidence supports that at all.  The argument that 
> "Lisp has not evolved" is IMO a masked "the Lisp standard has not 
> evolved".  There are plenty of extensions to Common Lisp in all the 
> necessary directions.

But it is true, that Common Lisp shadows (if you think of packages at
this point, you know you have coded to much CL *g*) some new
developments in the Lisp world. The advantage of Common Lisp is, that
you can implement virtually any language feature in it with more
or less hacking (Continuations -> more hacking, it would be nice to
have this in the language, it _can_ be implemented very efficiently)

Apropos developments in the Lisp world: See my other message about
Lisp on L4.
 
> Of course.  Lush is Greenspunning.  There is nothing in Lush that
> could not have been built on top of a specific Common Lisp
> implementation. The evidence for this was the message a few days ago
> on C.L.L. from Yuri at NYU (next door) saying that he had implemented
> C inlining for SBCL/CMUCL "just like Lush has".  Well, it turns out
> that the idea goes back to KCL in 1985.  Doesn't seem all that
> experimental to me.

I just skimmed over LUSH's feature set. Somehow "modern" and
"dynamically-scoped" does not add up for me. Reminds me of my tries to
successfully code in Elisp...
 
Regards,
-- 
Julian Stecklina

(Of course SML does have its weaknesses, but by comparison, a
 discussion of C++'s strengths and flaws always sounds like an
 argument about whether one should face north or east when one
 is sacrificing one's goat to the rain god.)         -- Thant Tessman