Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Re: Interpreters (Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was 
Message-ID: <DF95Zc2w165w@sytex.com>
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
References: <D3J8FB.11v@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:07:36 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:111410 comp.lang.lisp:16727

simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke) writes:

> If you perversely hacked enough out of LisP (any LisP) to make it
> *hard* to write an interpreter for S expressions, it would be pretty
> much useless for any other purpose, too.
> 

Howdy,
        Really? Would compiling away the symbolic names
of global bindings in, say a straight Lisp->ASM compiler,
be considered a "perverse hack". 
        It might still be easy to build an interpreter,
but it would not be an interpreter that could, in the
general case, obtain the values of compiled global
bindings, and thus less useful than the typical EVAL.
        Just a question.

=============================================
Scott McLoughlin
Conscious Computing
=============================================
