From b.gohla@gmx.de Wed Mar 13 03:50:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: b.gohla@gmx.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 13 Mar 2002 11:50:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 25925 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 11:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Mar 2002 11:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 11:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 21368 invoked by uid 0); 13 Mar 2002 11:50:30 -0000 Received: from b7aab.pppool.de (HELO linux) (213.7.122.171) by mail.gmx.net (mp006-rz3) with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 11:50:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lisp (was: Programming Languages for Lojban) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:50:42 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <200203131052.FAA19140@mail.reutershealth.com> In-Reply-To: <200203131052.FAA19140@mail.reutershealth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <02031312504204.01246@linux> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: =?utf-8?q?Bj=C3=B6rn=20Gohla?= Reply-To: b.gohla@gmx.de X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=36703491 X-Yahoo-Profile: badbirdde -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 13 March 2002 11:51, John Cowan wrote: > Jim Carter scripsit: > > I don't know all that much about Lisp, but my impression is that it is > > much more a procedural language. And if its pattern recognition code we= re > > written in a highly procedural fashion, the result would be achingly > > slow. > > Lisp need not be slow; that's a mental hangover from the days when > all Lisp systems were interpreters. Already back in the 70s Lisp > numerical code ran as fast as Fortran. > > Lisp (especially its Scheme dialect) is fundamentally an Algol-style > language, but with cheap object creation, garbage collection, local > variables and function pointers (the two together are much sweeter > than just local variables as in Pascal or just function pointers as > in C), and first-class continuations (which provides for easy > non-local control flow). It is greatly superior, as was said of > Algol 60, to almost all of its successors. not to forget macros, which i expect to be quite powerful in what we want t= o=20 do. the known c preprocessor macros are but a faint shadow of scheme macros= ,=20 wich are really in effect extensions to the interpreter (or the compiler). i remember reading a scholarly comparison of c(++), java and lisp. compiled= =20 lisp code was comparable to c++ but obviously not as fast as c code. lisp=20 showed the up as the language with the best average development time for a= =20 number of programming exercises. although that leaves the question wether=20 good programmers choose lisp (or scheme) or using those languages makes you= =20 one good programmer ;) . i will port the url. - --=20 panic ("No CPUs found. System halted.\n"); 2.4.3 linux/arch/parisc/kernel/setup.c pub 1024D/834F4976 2001-01-07 Bj=C3=B6rn Gohla (Wissenschaftler, Weltb=C3= =BCrger)=20 Key fingerprint =3D 9FF4 FEDA CCDF DA0E 14D5 8129 6C14 3C39 834F 4976 sub 1024g/29571FE2 2001-01-07 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8jz0WbBQ8OYNPSXYRAvU3AKDAkIB6zUjhXXcBLn5T13mZPsPCZACfT2bm r2KraGAbgoOBcclV2mJMA/4=3D =3DyK9Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----