🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Aug30.152155.9613@mentor.com> plogan@mentor.com (Patrick Logan) writes:
>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. ...the rest deleted...

I'd like to add, though, the SELF system from Stanford looks like it
generates very good target code from generic source code. Is there a
Lisp/Scheme system that uses similar techniques? The thing I dislike
about SELF is the syntax. Ironic, isn't it?



-- 
Patrick Logan                | ...!{decwrl,sequent,tessi}!mntgfx!plogan 
Mentor Graphics Corporation  | plogan@pdx.MENTOR.COM                    
Beaverton, Oregon            | "My other computer is a Lisp machine."