From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: IS(O-)Lisp status? Date: 1996/07/23 Message-ID: <3047102235547463@arcana.naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169618999 references: <4t0b6d$ge1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de> <4t225m$ir@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp [Richard A. O'Keefe] | Not only is it smaller, it is *gratuitously* different from some other | important Lisps, including Scheme, EU-Lisp, and Common Lisp. I hope it | dies. maybe you could sum up the differences? I meant to, a while ago, but the whole language leaves me with an icky feeling, partly because it feels like somebody had to compromise with somebody from Bell Labs or something. but, hey, maybe the reason other Lisps "failed" was precisely that they didn't have iteration constructs called `while' and `for'. such things are hard to tell. however, the class system appears solidly and well designed. #\Erik