Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1997/01/26
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <>

* Scott Schwartz
| I don't think it does even out the costs.  For one thing, you didn't
| measure the cost of (load "lotto.o").

you're being stupid on purpose.  you don't include compilation, assembling,
and linking time in C programs, so why do you do it for Lisp?  go away.

1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.