interpreted lisps

[nigelbrown]

Hi all,

I came across this brief exposition of benefits of interpreted, dynamic typed lisps - thought you may be interested and have some comments:

http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/submissions/Burger.pdf">http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lis ... Burger.pdf">http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/submissions/Burger.pdf



Nigel

[Excalibor]

Nice article...



I've tinkered with Pico Lisp some time ago, and it seemd a very pragmatic and nice solution... In a way, it's like newLisp, in others, it's not...



But most of what it's said in the article is Big Truth...



Thanks for sharing it!

[HJH]

Nice article...



I've tinkered with Pico Lisp some time ago, and it seemd a very pragmatic and nice solution... In a way, it's like newLisp, in others, it's not...

Where do you see the similarities to newLisp? Where do they differ?



The article shows an intersting statistic where the interpreted picoLisp is much faster than a compiled Lisp (CLisp). At least this shows that the interpreted vs. compiled question isn't an issue anymore.



--HJH

[Excalibor]

Nice article...



I've tinkered with Pico Lisp some time ago, and it seemd a very pragmatic and nice solution... In a way, it's like newLisp, in others, it's not...

Where do you see the similarities to newLisp? Where do they differ?



The article shows an intersting statistic where the interpreted picoLisp is much faster than a compiled Lisp (CLisp). At least this shows that the interpreted vs. compiled question isn't an issue anymore.



--HJH

In the intent: to have a LISP-like language pragmatic enough to be usable for all kind of projects without the limits imposed by Common Lisp, and with a host of ready libraries at the disposition of the programmer, a kind of "batteries included" languaje and library.



Common Lisp was designed to be many things for many different people, PicoLisp and I think newLISP were done to be just good enough for most projects, but w/o giving the jump to "everything for everyone" that may burden Common Lisp.



As for interpreters and compilers, in a way it's a moot point right now. The state of the craft has gracefully (more or less) blended both concepts into one, and JITs and other kind of optimizations for speed that were just possible before with static compilers, can be done nowadays on the fly...



Anyway, with current hardware, most language are basically fast enough for most task they were designed to cover, and then for many more...



But this is just my view, which is shortsighted and very limited...



greetings!

[nigelbrown]

... were done to be just good enough for most projects, but w/o giving the jump to "everything for everyone" that may burden Common Lisp.

I wouldn't characterise newlisp as "just good enough"! I'd almost put it in the "everything you need" category (except perhaps for conditions - hint, hint).



Nigel