Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

[marcoxa@MOSAIC.CS.NYU.EDU (Marco Antoniotti)]

In article <3lq0vn$hh@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:

   From: A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman)
   Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.lisp.mcl
   Date: 3 Apr 1995 23:39:35 GMT
   Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK
   Lines: 28
   NNTP-Posting-Host: fat-controller.cs.bham.ac.uk

   andrew@cee.hw.ac.uk (Andrew Dinn) writes:

   > ....
   > I can attack Common Lisp without defending Dylan. Common Lisp almost
   > killed of lisp application development because i) the fact that it is
   > such a fat language (thanks to all those proponents of {Mac, Inter,
   > Franz, Zeta, Foo, Bar, ...}Lisp who wanted all their favourite
   > features retained) combined with ii) the fact that all this fat
   > functionality was not layered as a series of libraries included as and
   > when you need them. The consequence of Common Lisp being defined as a
   > ball of mud was that a full Common Lisp implementation required, circa
   > 1988, about 12 Mb of VMem before you even started defining your own
   > functions.

   This memory hunger was surely more a matter of implementations than
   of the language.

   Poplog common lisp can run in under 4 Mbytes (and that includes the
   VED editor and full Pop-11 compiler). I seem to recall that Procyon
   common lisp was even more compact.

Not to speak of the wonderful Mac Common Lisp (nee Coral) which run
(in 1987) in <= 1Mb.

--
Marco Antoniotti - Resistente Umano
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robotics Lab		| room: 1220 - tel. #: (212) 998 3370
Courant Institute NYU	| e-mail: marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu

...e` la semplicita` che e` difficile a farsi.
...it is simplicity that is difficult to make.
				Bertholdt Brecht