home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / comp / lang / lisp / 3343 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1993-01-23  |  1.2 KB  |  27 lines
  1. Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!nott!cunews!dfs
  3. From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
  4. Subject: Re: Lisp syntax beauty? (was Re: Why Isn't Lisp a Mainstream Language?)
  5. Message-ID: <dfs.727757443@kehleyr>
  6. Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
  7. Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
  8. References: <1993Jan21.230642.18561@netlabs.com>     <19930122162651.0.SWM@SUMMER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>     <dfs.727723285@noonian> <1jpi0sINN47q@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>     <dfs.727732459@kehleyr> <KPC.93Jan22142048@zog.arc.nasa.gov>
  9. Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:50:43 GMT
  10. Lines: 17
  11.  
  12. In <KPC.93Jan22142048@zog.arc.nasa.gov> kpc@pluto.arc.nasa.gov (k p c) writes:
  13.  
  14. >there are technical solutions to that problem, aren't there?  i recall
  15. >there being something called presto that would eliminate parts of lisp
  16. >that weren't being used.
  17.  
  18. Two problems - it's a bit of a "kludge" - for best performance, you
  19. have to "train" presto to recognize which parts should be loaded and
  20. which shouldn't.  That's a bit tedious and adds nothing to your
  21. productivity.  Secondly, it's not part of the CL standard, so if you
  22. port your software to another implementation, there's no guarantee
  23. that it will have presto.
  24.  
  25. --
  26. David F. Skoll
  27.