Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!udel!gatech!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcomsv!torii!kirk
From: kirk@triple-i.com (Kirk Rader)
Subject: Re: C is faster than lisp (lisp vs c++ / Rick Graham...)
Message-ID: <Cvo0vJ.Kwu@triple-i.com>
Sender: usenet@triple-i.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: pak+
Organization: Information International Inc., Culver City, CA
References: <Cv3vu4.C03@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <CvB285.6Lz@triple-i.com> <CvGIz3.FsJ@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 16:38:06 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <CvGIz3.FsJ@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>Just when I think the discussion may have taken a reasonable turn,
>I get this.
>
>I hope that some day comp.lang.lisp is used to discuss how Lisp can be
>improved for applications where it performs poorly now rather than why
>such attempts are bound to sacrifice features or irritate Lisp "purists".

[...]

How lisp can be improved is one valid use for comp.lang.lisp.  Another
valid use is in requesting and offering advice on how to use lisp, or
how to avoid the potential problems one might encounter in using it.
One such request for information and advice came, and the response
amounted to "criticisms of lisp as being too big or too slow are all
just lisp bashing."  I responded that this was not true and that for
some kinds of applications the costs of using lisp outweigh its
benefits, while explictly stating that for other applications the
opposite is true, so that care should be taken when choosing a
language.  _You_ were the one who chose to interpret this as some sort
of general denunciation of all possible lisp dialects, past or future.
Use whatever rhetorical devices you wish, but I believe my position in
this has been more moderate and reasonable than yours.

