🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MWM.90Aug6180352@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes:

>Such a language is doomed to failure. The problem can be expressed as:
>Do you have hooks for dealing with sigournism, a field of study whose
>subject matter will be discovered in 2012, ...

Lisp, of course, has such capabilities; has had for years.
You just wrap parentheses around it and claim that it's
been there all along! ( :-) )

I'm not entirely joking.  New data types (simple and structured) are
easy to add.  New functions are easy.  New control structures are easy.
The framework stretches a long way.

I guess I'm not sure what the question is here.
You guys are talking of a "universal" language...
Do you have a problem we can't program around in Lisp (or C or whatever)?

(Of course, some problems can't be solved, regardless of the language.
Other problems are perhaps more conveniently expressed in one language
or another (Lisp of course making all programs equally inconvenient).)

-- 
Preston Briggs				looking for the great leap forward
preston@titan.rice.edu