[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why is tree-shaking hard?
- To: info-mcl@digitool.com
- Subject: Re: why is tree-shaking hard?
- From: Steven Ritter <sr0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 12:32:58 -0500
- Organization: Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
- References: <D5E7Et.7HL@midway.uchicago.edu>, <3k3cke$u6@Yost.com>, <DAVIS.95Mar14124022@passy.ilog.fr>
- Sender: owner-info-mcl@digitool.com
Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.lisp.mcl: 15-Mar-95 Re: why is
tree-shaking hard? by CHRISTOPHER ELIOT@cs.uma
> After all, the real value of Lisp is
> when you are building very large, and very complex programs,
> which is, I think, the future of programming.
>
No, I think the future of programming involves building very large and
very complex user environments which are constructed out of small,
relatively simple components (like OpenDoc parts or whatever OLE calls
them). In Lisp, each part incurs Lisp's overhead. In Dylan, parts can
share the runtime libraries. In the example given earlier, you can have
10 little, hello-world-size Dylan parts taking up less than 2 meg.
It may be possible to build a Lisp that relies on runtime libraries in
this way (and, if so, I hope someone does it) but as of now, Lisp is not
practical in a compound-document world.
Steve