From: ozymandias G desiderata
Subject: Re: HTML,SGML,HotJava,HTTP - Where do each fit in the big picture?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ktenwr7hk4.fsf@visit3.hmc.edu>
"kpc" == k p c <···@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov> writes:

  kpc> Is anybody interested in summarizing the status of any Lisp dialect
  kpc> for passing bits of programs around, having mobile web agents do work
  kpc> for you, and doing the other things that Java is poised to do?  I know
  kpc> some folks at MIT were working on this or scouting its borders with
  kpc> CL-HTTP and the Scheme Underground.  Will anything achieve the
  kpc> momentum of Java?

  Without getting into any religious wars, I would observe that it has
  traditionally been very difficult for Lisp-based languages to gain
  mainstream popularity. That bit of unpleasantness aside, let me say that
  the Scheme Underground's work seems promising, if a bit slowly-paced.

  Something else to keep in mind is that one of the chief things that Java
  provides is a secure bytecode interpreter. The list of bytecodes is freely
  available, so that it would be possible to put a Lisp-like front end onto
  Java. Java already has a certain level of dynamism, and the interpreter
  would certainly support (a typesafe) extension of the dynamism.

  kpc> I'd love to see it!

  It would be pretty cool, indeed.

  yrz,
  ozy
-- 
ozymandias G desiderata    ···@organic.com    Tomorrow's Web Sites Today
(415)284-6888          http://www.organic.com             Organic Online
From: Dr. Rich Artym
Subject: Re: HTML,SGML,HotJava,HTTP - Where do each fit in the big picture?
Date: 
Message-ID: <459kak$l68@auriga.galacta.demon.co.uk>
In article <··············@visit3.hmc.edu>, ozymandias G desiderata writes:

>   Something else to keep in mind is that one of the chief things that Java
>   provides is a secure bytecode interpreter. The list of bytecodes is freely
>   available, so that it would be possible to put a Lisp-like front end onto
>   Java. Java already has a certain level of dynamism, and the interpreter
>   would certainly support (a typesafe) extension of the dynamism.

Let's do it!  As long as full compatibility is maintained, there's no
reason why more than one surface syntax shouldn't be used, with the
appropriate bytecode compiler being selected either by syntax inference
or some trivial switch in the header.  The Lisp front-end could certainly
be much more expressive, and if some people's eyes go funny at the sight
of more than a couple of brackets then that's not a problem as they have
the standard Java syntax onto which to fall back.  Indeed, we could make
compiling and decompiling work to and from arbitrary readable forms,
with only the bytecode format being the lingua franca.  Sounds good!

-- 
###########  Dr. Rich Artym  ================  PGP public key available
# galacta #  Internet: ····@galacta.demon.co.uk     DNS 158.152.156.137
# ->demon #            ····@mail.g7exm[.uk].ampr.org   DNS 44.131.164.1
# ->ampr  #  NTS/BBS : ·····@gb7msw.#33.gbr.eu
# ->nexus #  Fun     : Unix, X, TCP/IP, OSI, kernel, O-O, C++, Soft/Eng
# ->NTS   #  More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London
###########  Q'Quote : "Object type is a detail of its implementation."