Subject: Re: IS(O-)Lisp status?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1996/07/23
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

[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.