Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

[Christopher.Young@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU]

>OS interfacing does take a lot of code and reduce efficiency in
>CommonLisp because CommonLisp isn't just content with interfacing with
>the OS.  Instead, it isolates the programmer from the OS.

This is true where the file system is concerned. However, I think MCL
provides excellent access to all the toolbox routines.

The fact of the matter is that each language has its own strengths and
weaknesses. For the app I am developing, lisp is clearly superior to C or
C++. However, there are other times when C might be better. Regardless, this
is really getting to be a tired subject.

I enjoyed this list a lot when we were talking about MCL and how to get things
done in it, and what the next version had in store. Comparing languages seems
more like a topic for another board. At this point, I'm sure not changing, 
and I am not concerned sufficiently about the issues being brought up in these
current discussions (the size of Word is certainly not stopping anybody from
buying that, after all).

Let's get back to MCL, folks. There must be a language newsgroups for those
of you who wish to debate all this.

			-- Chris.