Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: C is faster than lisp (lisp vs c++ / Rick Graham...)
Message-ID: <CvqDDB.1FA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <CvB285.6Lz@triple-i.com> <CvGIz3.FsJ@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <Cvo0vJ.Kwu@triple-i.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 23:03:10 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <Cvo0vJ.Kwu@triple-i.com> kirk@triple-i.com (Kirk Rader) writes:
>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.

Something I have never disagreed with.

However, it helps to get it right.

>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.

Bull.  You introduced claims about inherent problems of Lisp
and you offered _general_ arguments about the costs of richer
semantics.

The simple fact is that if you'd confined your remarks to the sort
you make here, I wouldn't have posted any reply.

Moreover, if you make claims about Lisp, I can certainly point
out other facts about Lisp that give a different impression.
You could have ended any difficulties there by agreeing with me.
But, in fact, you don't agree, despite your repeated assertions
that you're making only uncontroversial claims like the one above
and that there's no real disagreement between us.

-- jd



