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!agate!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!gw1.att.com!nntpa!nntpa.cb.att.com!lgm
From: lgm@polaris.ih.att.com (Lawrence G. Mayka)
Subject: Re: C is faster than lisp (lisp vs c++ / Rick Graham...)
In-Reply-To: kirk@triple-i.com's message of Fri, 9 Sep 1994 17:04:58 GMT
Message-ID: <LGM.94Sep11120213@polaris.ih.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: polaris.ih.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois, USA
References: <Cv9q23.89q@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <CvEMGF.570@triple-i.com>
	<Cvo0E7.Gws@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <CvvGsB.2AG@triple-i.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 17:02:13 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <CvvGsB.2AG@triple-i.com> kirk@triple-i.com (Kirk Rader) writes:

   discourse for comp.lang.lisp.)  In addition, (and here _is_ a
   substantive point of disagreement between us, I think) even from a
   theoretical point of view I seriously question the assumption that
   these future hypothetical lisp implementations could both be
   well-suited to the kinds of applications to which C is currently
   better suited _and_ still be well-suited to the kinds of applications
   for which lisp is currently better suited.  I am willing to be shown
   how they could, but I have seen no arguments that have convinced me
   that it is even plausible.

Common Lisp implementations often contain extensions that "add back
in" most-all the features for which C is praised: operations that
compile to a single machine instruction, for example.  Theoretically,
one could go to the trouble of standardizing such extensions, and
defining their relationship to the rest of Common Lisp, the result
being essentially a new language that is a union of Common Lisp and C
functionality, but with regular syntax.

Or if syntax is a hangup for you, we could define a new language
called "Gup" which simply includes all of Common Lisp, all of C
(irregular syntax and all), plus a complete interface between the two.
"Gup" is now well-suited for everything Common Lisp can do, as well as
everything C can do; and applications that require both sets of
capabilities are no worse off with "Gup" than they are now.

The point is that making assertions about =all theoretically possible
languages in the Lisp family= is rather tricky business.
--
        Lawrence G. Mayka
        AT&T Bell Laboratories
        lgm@ieain.att.com

Standard disclaimer.
