Subject: Re: Why is Lisp not more widely used?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1995/08/19
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

[Blake McBride]

|   32 bit Microsoft and WATCOM compilers (I wouldn't even try Borland or
|   Symantic).

why wouldn't you "even try" Borland or Symantec (note spelling)?

|   Keep in mind that these compilers are used by thousands and thousands
|   (millions?) of programmers.

a huge number of users do not make anything non-brain-dead, unless you wish
to say something about those millions at the same time, in which case it is
more likely that something used by millions of _amateurs_ _is_ brain-dead.

which is the brain-dead video tape format: VHS or Betamax?  which is used
by professionals, and which by millions of casual users?

|   They are also used to compile Windows 3.1, Windows NT

now, if true, this would be very interesting.  please provide references!

|   I think it is somewhat nieve to call these compilers "brain dead" just
|   because they don't have boundless limitations.

if you mean "naive", then no.  from _experience_ and sophistication comes
the realization that arbitrary limits is very bad for you and your users.
in case you didn't know, "naive" and "experienced" or "sophisticated" are
as close as you get to antonyms.  it is precisely _naivite_ that invite the
unwashed masses to write code with arbitrary limits.  just because the
unwashed masses outnumber the professionals doesn't mean they're right.  in
fact, quite the opposite is true in the general case.

|   Yes.  As previously posted, the standards do not allow for arbitrarly
|   large modules (or missing argument macros).

look, just because you can't read standards doesn't make them mean what you
want them to mean.  of _course_ standards "allow for" arbitrarily large
anything.  what standards do, is to avoid _requiring_ arbitrarily large
objects or numbers of things, but instead _require_ that no implementation
impose a maximum smaller than some specific limit.  the "minixum maximum"
rule has two goals: (1) discourage boneheads from implementing standards,
and (2) ensure the maximal portability of programs within those limits.  in
no way does the "minimum maximum" requirements mean that compilers or
programs that exceed them are non-conforming.

I can't believe you have managed to lead people on for so long.  you're
obviously clueless and uncurably so.  if you wish to make a shot at
changing this impression, make up your mind that you have posted your last
guess and that you will make all the effort that is required to ensure that
you will never again post wrong information.  above all, do not lie.

#<Erik 3017836048>
trigraph ??!??! die