[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

In message <3jsptg$o4j@kernighan.cs.umass.edu> CHRISTOPHER ELIOT writes:
> In article <199503111711.MAA14496@digitool.com> 
> > Christopher.Young@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU writes:
> >>Fortunately, there are alternatives for those who like the
> >>productivity and the parentheses but can't stand the size.
> [...]
> As far as I am concerned, the question of the size of a Lisp application
> was relevent a few years ago, but certainly won't be relevent a few
> years from now.
> Quicken takes over 2400K, my Lisp applications are all smaller than that.
> The entire quicken folder uses 3000K, Color It! (a graphic utility)
> has 2500K in the folder. My Word folder is 6600K, Think C needs
> over 10000K. I've seen games that need 4 of 5 meg.

I think nobody denies that complex applications are large. And the 
(about constant) overhead of Lisps runtime system does no longer
matter when creating really complex things.
But what you can't do in Lisp are all those small and efficient tools
which make my Mac a useful thing. What if each 
- battery tool
- text editor
- hex file viewer
- resource editor
- mail tool
- news reader
- web browser
- printer driver
- QuickTime tools
- Picture Tools (viewers, converters, ...)
etc. etc.
all were written as standalone Lisp apps? I use quite a number of such goodies.
Then I would need a 5 GigaB disk instead of the 80MB disk in my PowerBook.

Note that while QT movies tend to be big, the various apps like
SimplePlayer, ConvertToMovie, QuickMovie, etc. are really tiny.
(ConvertToMovie takes 68K on disk...)

This would be all different, if my PB were a real Lisp machine,
were all these apps were not complete standalones but only just
lightweight Lisp tasks running in one big Lisp environment.


rudolf mittelmann

systems theory
Johannes Kepler University Linz Austria Europe