Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Why do people like C? (Was: Comparison: Beta - Lisp)
Message-ID: <Cy6wIH.8DD@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <Cxxwx0.1nC@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <Cy1H5H.5I8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <welch.17.001648E1@anzus.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 18:25:29 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <welch.17.001648E1@anzus.com> welch@anzus.com (Arun Welch) writes:
>In article <Cy1H5H.5I8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>>In article <Cxxwx0.1nC@rheged.dircon.co.uk> simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke) writes:
>
>>>(iia1) Prior to the definition of Common LISP, many LisP programmers
>>>used an in-core development style
>
>>This "load" is something like two characters (C-z e) in the Emacs
>>mode I use.  I'd much rather have that than DEDIT!
>
>Geez, DEDIT hasn't been part of the main system for at least 5 releases, it 
>was replaced almost 8 years ago (the only reason it's still around as a 
>library entry is because there might be someone somewhere who really feels 
>compelled to use it). Comparing emacs to it is as silly as comparing emacs to 
>ed(1)... 

I was aware that it was no longer the usual editor.

But the people who flame about representing programs as text should
consider that more than one factor is involved.  If you accept that
Emacs is better than DEDIT or that any text-based editor could be
better than DEDIT, then you agree with me on this.

However, a number of people don't.  They think the text-based
approach is inherently wrong.  The very same "arguments" were
being made when DEDIT was the usual editor, you know.

In short, I mention DEDIT to heighten contradictions.

BTW, in my view, both approaches can be sufficiently good that what
remains is just a matter of personal preference.  

>>As far as I can tell, there's nothing on page 347 or anywhere else
>>that prevents a Common Lisp system from retaining comments in various
>>ways.
>
>There is, however, something on page 526: "The semicolon and all
>characters up to and including the next newline are ignored".

I knew of that and I disagree with your interpretation.

Sure, if I call READ nothing can appear in the result as a product
of the comment.  But programming environments are free to retain
whatever information they want.  Moreover, the information can be
made accessible through language extensions.

>>  Perhaps the particular  workarounds you mention violate
>>something, but I don't know what it is.  (But  then I don't know
>>what those workarounds do.)
>
>What those workarounds do is fail to ignore the semicolon and all characters 
>up to and including the next newline.

How so?

-- jeff



