Subject: Re: Lisp: A tower of babble? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 24 Oct 1994 03:50:11 UT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <19941024T035011Z.email@example.com> [Jeff Dalton] | The idea that Lisp is a single language has done -- and is doing -- | tremendous damage. [Mike Haertel] | However, one could also argue that the absence of a single "Lisp" has | done a tremendous amount of damage. | | But then, of course, the argument rages: Whose lisp? Jeff has repeatedly commented that Common LISP is not the only LISP, and he argues very strongly that one should not transfer arguments on Common LISP to "LISP" in general. I'm a little unclear about the characteristics of these non-Common LISPs. Jeff, it would be enlightening if you could list the alternatives you have in mind. if you could make two sub-groups, one for general-purpose, portable and widely supported LISPs, and one for special-purpose or embedded LISPs, I think that would be very helpful. #<Erik> -- Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer.