Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!news.hal.COM!halsoft.com!netcomsv!torii!kirk
From: kirk@triple-i.com (Kirk Rader)
Subject: Re: C is faster than lisp (lisp vs c++ / Rick Graham...)
Message-ID: <Cw0uK3.HLz@triple-i.com>
Sender: usenet@triple-i.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: pak+
Organization: Information International Inc., Culver City, CA
References: <CvGIz3.FsJ@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <Cvo0vJ.Kwu@triple-i.com> <CvqDDB.1FA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 14:50:26 GMT
Lines: 86

In article <CvqDDB.1FA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>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.

That is, obviously, a matter of point of view.  I believe myself to
have "gotten it right" and have received any number of private email
messages indicating that some people, at least, agree that I have done
so.  I don't doubt that you have received the same in support of you
positions - so simply making this sort of unsupported assertion that
I'm wrong does nothing but exacerbate the ill-will in this thread that
I though we each were making efforts to ameliorate.

>
>>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.

Again: _only in the context of a discussion of application-specific
performance issues_.  When people have suggested that my remarks could
be interpreted as making more general claims I have repeatedly both
agreed that it is possible, though not currently common-place, to deal
with these issues via language design and implementation and pointed
out that the appearance of my even making such general claims was (I
still believe) mainly the result of selective quoting out of context.
If I didn't think that different language design and implementation
choices resulted in different application performance, why would I
think that different current languages are better suited to different
tasks?

Having said all that, I still have seen no convincing argument from
you on how you think it possible that a language could both retain a
significant percentage of the additional features of present lisps and
also be suitable for a significant percentage of the kinds of
applications for which present lisps are not well suited.  Until I see
any such convincing arguments, I will persist in my belief that
additional features don't come for free.

>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
>
>
>

I have never said that there is _no_ real disagreement between us.  I
do think that the substantive issues on which we disagree are not
worth the length or heatedness of this thread, and have proposed
ending it any number of times.  I am not willing, however, to simply
let this sort of message stand unanswered.

Kirk Rader
