Just for a moment assume I might not be completely wrong, that CL goes
too far down the road to gratuitouse conformity.
One of the best things I've read recently is (I beleive Sussman and
Ableson's) History of Lisp. It occures to me that a lisp History faq
would a)be more thorough than this, due to even more contributed
points of view, and b)helpful in keeping Lisp "true to the music".
Perhaps no language deserves such sentimentality, but if any do, it is
lisp.
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: lisp history faq; a damned good read; and a possible cure for what ails you.
Date:
Message-ID: <gvZTPCgZaJBD5pTnktAJZf0iqJoG@4ax.com>
On 26 Jan 2002 13:28:12 -0800, ······@ureach.com (zaphod) wrote:
> Ableson's) History of Lisp. It occures to me that a lisp History faq
You may check:
"The Evolution of Lisp (by Steele and Gabriel)"
ftp://ftp.cs.indiana.edu/pub/scheme-repository/doc/pubs/Evolution-of-Lisp.ps.gz
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://web.mclink.it/amoroso/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> wrote in message news:<····························@4ax.com>...
> On 26 Jan 2002 13:28:12 -0800, ······@ureach.com (zaphod) wrote:
>
> > Ableson's) History of Lisp. It occures to me that a lisp History faq
>
> You may check:
>
> "The Evolution of Lisp (by Steele and Gabriel)"
> ftp://ftp.cs.indiana.edu/pub/scheme-repository/doc/pubs/Evolution-of-
Actually, thats the one I meant. I habitually mix up Steele and
Sussman, and then got the Title wrong too. Bet that will make me even
harder to consider.
Lisp.ps.gz
>
>
> Paolo
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: lisp history faq; a damned good read; and a possible cure for what ails you.
Date:
Message-ID: <87hep1et15.fsf@tunes.org>
······@ureach.com (zaphod) writes:
> Just for a moment assume I might not be completely wrong, that CL goes
> too far down the road to gratuitouse conformity.
> One of the best things I've read recently is (I beleive Sussman and
> Ableson's) History of Lisp. It occures to me that a lisp History faq
> would a)be more thorough than this, due to even more contributed
> points of view, and b)helpful in keeping Lisp "true to the music".
> Perhaps no language deserves such sentimentality, but if any do, it is
> lisp.
Excellent idea! Why don't you start a Lisp History section on CLiki?
Then others could easily contribute. (Though some TeX/LaTeX documents
in a public PRCS or CVS tree would produce much better output, and in
more formats...)
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
Brian P Templeton <···@tunes.org> wrote in message news:<··············@tunes.org>...
> ······@ureach.com (zaphod) writes:
>
> > Just for a moment assume I might not be completely wrong, that CL goes
> > too far down the road to gratuitouse conformity.
> > One of the best things I've read recently is (I beleive Sussman and
> > Ableson's) History of Lisp. It occures to me that a lisp History faq
> > would a)be more thorough than this, due to even more contributed
> > points of view, and b)helpful in keeping Lisp "true to the music".
> > Perhaps no language deserves such sentimentality, but if any do, it is
> > lisp.
> Excellent idea! Why don't you start a Lisp History section on CLiki?
Don't be cruel to a heart thats true! Even had I the resources; I am
Johny come newbie, and such would show even more gall than is my
won't. I respect lisp to much to attempt such a thing, when I am
having trouble getting simple programs to work (I'm using an old
implementation of mulisp, and I haven't found the "do what I mean"
key, yet!).
> Then others could easily contribute. (Though some TeX/LaTeX documents
> in a public PRCS or CVS tree would produce much better output, and in
> more formats...)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: lisp history faq; a damned good read; and a possible cure for what ails you.
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3g04140h4.fsf@cley.com>
* Slarty wrote:
> (I'm using an old
> implementation of mulisp, and I haven't found the "do what I mean"
> key, yet!).
You need interlisp for that.
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote in message news:<···············@cley.com>...
> * Slarty wrote:
> > (I'm using an old
> > implementation of mulisp, and I haven't found the "do what I mean"
> > key, yet!).
>
> You need interlisp for that.
Thanks for the laugh!