Any good papers or sites that address the topic of comparing LISP (any dialect)
to C and C++. I the information from the FAQ about the speed of C vs. LISP, but
that's as much as I've found at this point.
Thanks,
- Jay
In article <·················@sandiego.gensym.com> ···@gensym.com
(Josquin S. Corrales) writes:
>Any good papers or sites that address the topic of comparing LISP (any dialect)
>to C and C++.
The answer to which is better is obvious to anyone with above a second
grade education. Cross-posted to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++.
(No, relax, put those flamethrowers down. *Down* I say. Just kidding.)
Seriously though, email opinions to him, but let's not start another
flamewar now.
- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
Lisp Resources: <http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/lisp.html>
In <·················@sandiego.gensym.com>, ···@gensym.com (Josquin S. Corrales) writes:
>Any good papers or sites that address the topic of comparing LISP (any dialect)
>to C and C++. I the information from the FAQ about the speed of C vs. LISP, but
>that's as much as I've found at this point.
>Thanks,
>- Jay
Jay:
Here we go again. Come on, Jay, I am a C programmer, but I know
better than to compare languages as different as C and Lisp.
Please, all, don't flame this troll, just ignore him (if possible).
Comparing Lisp is C is like comparing FORTRAN to COBOL: you're talking
apple to oranges. Vastly different purposes; totally different perspectives.
The Good Lord knows there're four topics reasonable people we should
never debate:
1) programming languages
2) operating systems
3) religion
4) politics
Enough said. Thanks.
-Kevin
········@charm.net, [Kevin, J, Baxter] wrote:
>
> In <·················@sandiego.gensym.com>, ···@gensym.com (Josquin S. Corrales) writes:
> >Any good papers or sites that address the topic of comparing LISP (any dialect)
> >to C and C++. I the information from the FAQ about the speed of C vs. LISP, but
> >that's as much as I've found at this point.
> >Thanks,
> >- Jay
>
> Jay:
>
> Here we go again. Come on, Jay, I am a C programmer, but I know
> better than to compare languages as different as C and Lisp.
>
No quarrel with your observation in re the wide differences, but I had to respond because a
couple of weeks ago I had started compiling a language comparison table while trying to
decide if Java was more like Smalltalk or C++.
I ended up with columns for Lisp, Dylan, Smalltalk, Java and C++. C would have been
pointless given the rows I had in mind:
The rows were dynamism, GC, multiple-inheritance, macros, closures, strong vs loose typing
(aka compile-time vs run-time), "all-objects-all-the-time", is-it-compiled, source as text
file, and maybe others. (Can't find it now.)
I put things in the list which IMO really mattered to programming productivity. I left out
things which were true of all of them, such as supporting recursion.
It was fun, and the kind of thing I think we Lisp proponents should encourage the Great
Unsaved to undertake. Needless to say, Lisp came out looking pretty good.
My two bits.
Cheers,
Ken
I wrote:
>
> It was fun, and the kind of thing I think we Lisp proponents should encourage the Great
> Unsaved to undertake. Needless to say, Lisp came out looking pretty good.
>
As I wrote the above, a soft alarm went off. Checked my Bartlett's this AM, and indeed I have misquoted Henry Peter,
Lord Brougham (1778-1868).
"The great Unwashed," said his Lordness.
Cheers,
Ken