home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight2!gat
- From: gat@forsight2.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
- Subject: Re: Lisp syntax beauty? (was Re: Why Isn't Lisp a Mainstream Language?)
- Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:09:48 GMT
- Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
- Lines: 29
- Message-ID: <1jqgecINNjbf@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
- References: <dfs.727723285@noonian> <1jpi0sINN47q@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <dfs.727732459@kehleyr>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: forsight2.jpl.nasa.gov
-
- In article <dfs.727732459@kehleyr> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
- >In <1jpi0sINN47q@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> gat@forsight2.jpl.nasa.gov (Erann
- >Gat) writes:
- >
- >>(You seem to be complaining about two orthogonal issues, by
- >>the way, the syntax of format strings and their functionality.
- >
- >You are right. I wrote my article hastily. But the "format" function
- >is representative of one aspect of Common Lisp which I believe
- >prevents it from becoming a "mainstream" language - Common Lisp
- >attempts to do almost everything, with the result that 90% of the Lisp
- >image is devoted to functions a small-to-medium program will never use.
- >
- >And people have been arguing that Lisp is a very good general
- >purpose language. A function that prints English names of numbers
- >is a pretty special-purpose function!
-
- There is an ongoing discussion on comp.lang.lisp.mcl which might be of
- interest to followers of this thread. The discussion centers on the issue
- of how to produce small applications using Lisp. The suggestion has been
- made that Common Lisp should be considered an operating system and not
- an application. In that case, having a zillion obscure functions is no
- more unreasonable than having a large C library. (BTW - MCL (Macintosh
- Common Lisp) implements all of CLTL2 and is 1.5 Megabytes, about a tenth
- the size of Allegro.)
-
- Erann Gat
- gat@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
-
-