Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!torn!kwon!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!not-for-mail
From: papresco@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: Will Java VM kill Lisp?  How to fight it.
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Message-ID: <E8BJEM.GIq@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:15:57 GMT
X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test50 (13 Dec 96)
References: <5ibcks$hvf$1@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
Nntp-Posting-Host: calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo Computer Science Club
Lines: 40
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:26491 comp.lang.scheme:19382

In article <5ibcks$hvf$1@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>,
Robert Munyer <munyer@MCS.COM> wrote:
>I'm concerned that Java may be a threat to the future of Lisp
>(including Scheme).
>
>I'm not talking about Java the language, threatening Lisp by being
>better in some way -- in the past, Lisp has been able to neutralize
>such threats just by evolving or adding features.
>
>Instead I'm talking about Java the CPU architecture, threatening
>Lisp by slowing it to a crawl.  I'm not an expert on the Java
>Virtual Machine but from what I've heard, it sounds like it's the
>exact opposite of a Lisp machine: a processor architecture that
>pessimizes the performance of Lisp, compared to other languages
>(and compared to Lisp on a general-purpose processor).

The physical CPU is not relevant. It is the features of the 
CPU (generalized or Java-specific) that are relevant.  I agree with
you that as the JVM becomes a more and more important "platform", 
Lisp will be at a disadvantage compared to Java, and some Java-like
languages. I think one way to attack this is to define and
implement efficient Lisp-style language support to publically 
available JVMs, like GNU's Kaffe. Running code is the Law of the
Internet.

I was hoping that ISO would be the place to add support for
other languages to the JVM, but my impression is that
Java will be standardized under a new "improved" process that 
basically rubber-stamps defacto standards, rather than going 
through the usual ISO process.

"Providing the capability of accepting standard solutions to IT problems
that have been developed outside JTC 1 has been a significant step in
JTC 1, and we are delighted that the process is being used."

I believe that standardizing this VM without thinking of other languages
(not just Lisp) would be a huge step backwards.

 Paul Prescod

