🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Aug26.232710.27174@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <70663@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> leichter@CS.YALE.EDU (Jerry Leichter) writes:
>>distressing to think that the machines of the future may be "refined" to the
>>point where doing anything but Unix and C will require extreme effort.  Take a
>>look at the history of LISP on CDC machines to see the possible results.)
>
>Take a look at the history of Lisp on Lisp machines, whose time has come
>*and gone* -- those awful "C-only" RISC machines run Lisp faster than the
>custom-cooked Lisp machines do.
>-- 
>V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Saying that C machines run Lisp faster than Lisp machines is
simplistic. To run Lisp faster on a C machine requires more
declarations in the code (or, as with T, more use of "type-specific"
procedures such as fx+ instead of generic +). This goes against the
grain of Lisp programming.

Lisp machines provide a better environment (e.g. protection, ability
to write fast, generic code) per performance unit. I'd guess the only
reasons their time is gone are market based. They're sure to return in
one form or another as more and more C machine programs are written in
Lisp-like languages. Many C machine architectures (e.g. SPARC) already
incorporate some support for Lisp.
-- 
Patrick Logan                | ...!{decwrl,sequent,tessi}!mntgfx!plogan 
Mentor Graphics Corporation  | plogan@pdx.MENTOR.COM                    
Beaverton, Oregon            | "My other computer is a Lisp machine."