From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!agilent.com!sdd.hp.com!usc.edu!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.esat.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: How I lost my faith (very long) References: <42e37222.0202111748.77f8a64a@posting.google.com> <3C697B24.9D1A372@alltel.net> <3222540975992591@naggum.net> <863d04es3m.fsf@cs.uga.edu> <87vgd0m5us.fsf@orion.bln.pmsf.de> <3222747467111424@naggum.net> <3222828389147771@naggum.net> <3223114426294576@naggum.net> <3C733561.2B7FB1AA@nyc.rr.com> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3223195572718179@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:06:09 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 1014206769 193.71.199.50 (Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:06:09 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:06:09 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:26922 * Kenny Tilton | Now tell us again how C++ is just 10% less effective than Lisp? This is easy, really: When you do things that can be done well in C++, Lisp is 10-15% more efficient than doing it in C=+. When you do things that can be done well in Lisp, using C++ instead fails completely. This is no mystery at all. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.