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!news.dfci.harvard.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!news.mathworks.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ais.net!ix.netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: ddyer@netcom.com (Dave Dyer)
Subject: Re: Will Java VM kill Lisp?  How to fight it.
Message-ID: <ddyer-0804970840410001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: ddyer@netcom19.netcom.com
Organization: Andromeda Software
References: <5ibcks$hvf$1@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> <ddyer-0704971023520001@192.0.2.1> <ppwbu7q5rwz.fsf@m10-250-1.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:40:40 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:26495 comp.lang.scheme:19391

>these wouldn't be pie-in-the-sky additions, but rather additions that
>would make the java VM more useful than it is now.  it's currently
>tuned to run java code, without much consideration of other
>languages.  it could be extended in such a way that it was still just
>as efficient at running java code and also had support for running
>other languages efficiently.

I dont question the value of such additions to Java from
the viewpoint of those whose primary adjenda is NOT Java, 
but from the viewpoint of those for whom it is, having the
Java VM and the Java standard optimized to run Java is a
good thing.

Suppose some Cobol fanatics came nosing around the ANSI 
Lisp committee, with a list of proposed additions to make
Lisp more punch-card friendly.  What kind of reception do
you imagine they'd get?

More seriously, the job of the standards committee is to 
ensure uniformity; and in view of the *many* java implementations
in existance or in progress, I'm sure the last thing on their
mind is to specify completely new functionality to make Java
a better language.

-- 
My home page:  http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/home.html
