In article <··········@merlin.delphi.com> Joe User <···@mci.newscorp.com> writes:
From: Joe User <···@mci.newscorp.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: 2 Dec 1995 00:18:02 GMT
Organization: MCI/News Corp.
Lines: 17
References: <················@naggum.no> <··········@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <·················@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22D (Windows; U; 16bit)
When people propose that they need a language which is easier to
compile than CL because it reduces the implementation resources
I really begin to wonder.
The differences between compiling CL, Scheme, Dylan, EULISP, or whatever
are rather trivial compared with the difficulting of generating
good code for RISC architectures, properly interfacing with
the operating system and competing with the
debugging and general code development environments available
in products such as Microsoft Visual C++.
Yes! It took MS and Borland 10 years to get close (not quite there) to
the Xerox and Symbolics environments of the early 80's. :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti - Resistente Umano
===============================================================================
International Computer Science Institute | ·······@icsi.berkeley.edu
1947 Center STR, Suite 600 | tel. +1 (510) 643 9153
Berkeley, CA, 94704-1198, USA | +1 (510) 642 4274 x149
===============================================================================
...it is simplicity that is difficult to make.
...e` la semplicita` che e` difficile a farsi.
Bertholdt Brecht