Is there a place I could download it? (to run on a laptop and try it out.)
Common Lisp that is. I've always been interested in it.
Jim
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"Dmitri Ivanov" <di24va56nov_at_aha.ru-Digits-for-spammers> wrote in message
news:avh8b4$2ln4$1_at_news.aha.ru...
> Hello,
> "Tim X" <timx_at_spamto.devnul.com> wrote:
>
> TX> "Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com> writes:
> TX> | ...snip...|
> TX> Many of those who don't like Java point to its speed and large
> TX> memory footprint as reasons why it is no good. However, I cannot
> TX> think of a single language which is as portable as Java...
>
> Just for the curious, take a look at Common Lisp. It is really vendor
> independent and cross-platform nowadays. Common Lisp was the first OO
> language standardized by ANSI in 1994. Java can only dream of the power
and
> expressiveness of Lisp. Modern implementations, both commercial and
> opensourced, compile in native code and several times overperform Java and
> VB. Many conceptual "problems" Java is bumped into, were solved for CL
more
> than a decade ago.
>
> TX> ... - while it
> TX> may not be as portable in all areas to the extent the Sun marketers
> TX> whould like us to believe, it is still more portable than any
> TX> other language I can think of.
>
> Ditto about "most portable".
>
> TX> ... I think the other point to keep in
> TX> mind is the fact memory is dropping in price and machines are
> TX> increasing in speed at a very rapid rate. Back in the late 80s
> TX> nobody considered basic to be a real language because it was
> TX> interpreted and therefore considered to slow - now look at it. Even
> TX> OO was criticised at first because of its additional overhead.
> TX> However, as memory becomes cheaper and systems become faster,
> TX> issues of speed and memory usage become less important and overcome
> TX> by issues of maintenance, speed of development and safety.
>
> This sad analogy could be applied to Common Lisp too. Back in 80s it was
> considered to big and slow. The reality is that Lisp keeps itself the same
> size,
> but its speed has improved greatly with the advance of modern hardware.
You
> can easily imagine how CL performs in comparison to today's monsters like
M$
> and Java.
> ---
> Sincerely,
> Dmitri Ivanov
> www.aha.ru/~divanov
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 08 2003 - 09:53:34 CST
