Subject: Re: LISP and C++
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/11/18
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* William Deakin <>
| Yes. You either use C calling convention for C++, and lose 50% of the
| reason why I program in C++ and not C or wrestle with some ugly
| non-readable names, just beggers belief.  Ugly, ugly and more ugly.

  but it's C++ that is being ugly in this situation -- we're just trying to
  cope.  had the proverbial They standardized their name mangling, nobody
  would have needed to know about it, and just about anybody could use a
  name that wasn't mangled, but instead some longer form that would contain
  the same information.  neither beauty nor elegance of design are part of
  the reason people use C++, so this will never win an argument.  and C++
  people are forever mired in a conflation of representation and value.  I
  was predictably horrified to read that Bjarne suggests that people use
  _different_ name mangling schemes.  the shock, the pain.  :)

| People have suggested ways round this, using trampoline code, for example,
| some of which are moderately elegant. But I am of a mind so as not to be
| persuaded other than that this a type of the lowest form of hackery and
| kludge.

  but shirk not from necessity hoping that it would thereby resolve itself.

  C++ compiler vendors should make an effort to interface with Common Lisp.
  after all, they have the stuff people claim to want to talk to, and C++
  is at fault for being badly standardized.  so go talk to the guys who
  made up this stupid problem in the first place.
  Attention Microsoft Shoppers!  MS Monopoly Money 6.0 are now worthless.