From: Jim Carden
Subject: Lisp, C, and Smalltalk (Was: Is the Lisp Language Stagnant?)
Date:
Message-ID: <3381@tekgen.bv.tek.com>
[N.B. This is posted for ····@goldfish.mitron.tek.com]
In article <······················@cc.umontreal.ca> ·······@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Kardan Kaveh) writes:
>>In article <·····@castle.ed.ac.uk> ····@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>
>>I sometimes think we should change the charter of Comp.lang.lisp
>>to say the purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss why Lisp sucks.
>>That's what we seem to spend most of out time doing.
>
>The lament seems to be more along the lines of "Why isn't Lisp more like C?"
I read Comp.lang.lisp and Comp.lang.smalltalk. This kind of thread seems to crop up on
the Lisp group several times a year. It never crops up on the Smalltalk list. Yet Smalltalk
systems that I am aware of do not have a common C interface and are less integrated with the
host operating system than any of the Lisp systems I am aware of. The syntax of Smalltalk
is as different from C as Lisp's, plus it doesn't have a built-in syntax extension facility.
Why?
Also I have noticed a significant increase in Smalltalk programming opportunities in the last
year. It appears to be establishing a place in the new (object oriented) world order. CommonLisp,
CLOS, and Scheme (among other Lisps) do not appear to be gaining as much growth. In this sense
I do fear the Lisp family of languages is stagnating. Lisp-like languages are a more common
extension language, perhaps the CAD Framework Initiative will eventually breath some life into
a commercial Scheme market. Perhaps Dylan and EuLisp will contribute something.
Hmm.
--
Patrick Logan, ····@goldfish.mitron.tek.com