From: Marcus Daniels
Subject: Re: Is LISP dead?
Date: 
Message-ID: <rfienune8d1.fsf@sayre.sysc.pdx.edu>
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe User <···@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
In article <··········@merlin.delphi.com> Joe User <···@mci.newscorp.com> writes:

Joe> The differences between compiling CL, Scheme, Dylan, EULISP, or
Joe> whatever are rather trivial compared with the difficulting of
Joe> generating good code for RISC architectures, properly interfacing
Joe> with the operating system and competing with the debugging and
Joe> general code development environments available in products such
Joe> as Microsoft Visual C++.

Joe User, are you a representative of alt.syntax.tactical?

From: Paul Walsh
Subject: Fortran to Lisp translator
Date: 
Message-ID: <DJ2z6B.L34@curia.ucc.ie>
Hello,
Could anybody direct me to a good Fortran to Lisp translator, if such a thing exists.
Thanks,
Paul Walsh
····@csvax1.ucc.ie 
From: Joe User
Subject: Re: Is LISP dead?
Date: 
Message-ID: <4aclth$5db@klein.delphi.com>
······@sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) wrote:
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe User <···@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
>In article <··········@merlin.delphi.com> Joe User <···@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
>
>Joe> The differences between compiling CL, Scheme, Dylan, EULISP, or
>Joe> whatever are rather trivial compared with the difficulting of
>
>Joe User, are you a representative of alt.syntax.tactical?
>

No. I am an old lisp implementor, having worked on the internals
of multiple university-based and commercial lisp systems,
and having shipped commercial products that use lisp.
Even now I am using lisp in commercial products, hidden in
the guts of the system.

Now CL may be ugly, but any differences in difficulty
of doing a quality implementation, compared with Scheme, Dylan
or EULISP are commercially insignificant.

And any company that says otherwise is only documenting
the restricted capabilities of its own implementation team.