Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!vrotney
From: vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney)
Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages)
In-Reply-To: andy@research.canon.com.au's message of 30 Jan 1997 17:18:03 +1100
Message-ID: <vrotneyE4upHB.EF6@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
References: <GJR.97Jan29110355@hplgr2.hpl.hp.com> <32EFB4B7.2185@vcc.com> <5copsh$q0m$1@joe.rice.edu> <5cpeer$kss@horton.research.canon.com.au>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:27:11 GMT
Lines: 15
Sender: vrotney@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.arch:74873 comp.lang.lisp:24985 comp.lang.scheme:18289

In article <5cpeer$kss@horton.research.canon.com.au> andy@research.canon.com.au (Andy Newman) writes:
> 
> vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) writes:
> > However, the wheel of reinvention might spin again...
> 
> Given how often this particular subject has come in comp.arch over the
> years a wheel certainly does spin but it doesn't seem to be related to
> Lisp-specific processors.
> 

Perhaps only because currently dogmatism rules?  Just a guess.

-- 

William P. Vrotney - vrotney@netcom.com
