Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!eos!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!chucko
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry )
Subject: Re: Lisp is alive, was "Re: Common LISP: The Next Generation"
Message-ID: <1996Sep30.221738.12466@ptolemy-ethernet.arc.nasa.gov>
Sender: usenet@ptolemy-ethernet.arc.nasa.gov (usenet@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cassini.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: Caelum Research Corp., Code IC, NASA Ames, Moffett Field, CA
References: <3052297391247606@naggum.no> <843335875snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> <rfin2yilhi5.fsf@sayre.sysc.pdx.edu> <52b8tu$n62@universe.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:17:38 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <52b8tu$n62@universe.digex.net>,
Janice M. Eisen <jme@universe.digex.net> wrote:
>Has anyone checked out the STELLA language concept, which can be
>translated into either Common LISP or C++? 

It's hard for me to take seriously any evaluation of Common Lisp's
state that includes the following (directly from their home page):

 ... However, Common Lisp has several drawbacks: Its
 performance is slow (as compared to a C++ program); it does not
 interface well to tools and applications in commercial environments
 (e.g., to C++ and CORBA); and it fails to incorporate recent object
 system trends (e.g., collections, iterators, and parameterized
 types). As a result, customer demand and vendor support for Lisp is
 declining, creating yet another reason to abandon Lisp.

The "drawbacks" are the usual collection of misrepresentations and
half-facts.  

The first "drawback", Common Lisp's speed, which while not down to the
C level of machine efficiency, can certainly be more than adequate for
many applications.  All it takes is the right algorithm for the
problem, care in coding, and a modern optimizing compiler, as with any
other language.  Look at Fateman's work with arithmetic optimization
for a reality check.

I contend Lisp's biggest problem, discounting parenthetophobia, is
that it is taught poorly.  People still think it's about linked lists
and recursive programming, when clearly there's a lot more to modern
Lisps than just cons cells and lambda expressions.  The resulting code
uses large lists like arrays (I have actually seen this!), runs slower
than molasses in January, and management winds up blaming the language
rather than the inadequately trained programmer.

The second "drawback", interfacing, is a bit of a chicken-and-egg
problem.  Languages that aren't "popular" (read: promoted by mass
marketers like Microsoft, IBM, Borland, et al) don't get included in
the creation of standards like CORBA.  Because they aren't included,
they become less "popular".  

Meanwhile in the real world, our team is working in C++ and Lisp,
integrated with some pain but running smoothly now.

The third "drawback" mentioned is actually a drawback of C++!!  I
believe that collections, iterators, and parameterized types are
merely programming idioms that a generalized macro facility could
handle.  Common Lisp doesn't have these "features" because *it doesn't
need them*.

Given this bogus justification for STELLA's existence, I am not really
encouraged to investigate it any deeper.
 -- Chuck Fry, Lisp bigot
-- 
 Chuck Fry  Work: chucko@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov  Play: chucko@best.com
	I alone am responsible for the contents of this post.
	      Keep NASA and Caelum Research out of this.
