Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

[Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult)]

sef@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Fahlman) writes:
> Not exactly true.  The over-riding concern of the people designing
> Common Lisp was to come up with a design that N different groups, all
> with different agendas and different existing implementations, could
> agree on.  Keeping small crocks and kludges in the language was very
> often the price for keeping some group or other from jumping off the
> bandwagon.  I am sure that any one of the major Common Lisp designers
> could have designed a more elegant and beautiful Lisp dialect, but
> then it would not have been common.  The result is a language that
> served an important purpose for many years (and continues to do so,
> though it's fading a bit) but that not even its mother could love.
> Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by committee.  Camels
> do have their uses.

Sounds *exactly* like C++ and the process that turned C into it.