Subject: Re: Lisp-2 or Lisp-1
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 06:54:29 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
Raffael Cavallaro <> wrote:
| How many fewer programmers would there be if programming still meant
| entering raw op-codes in order to specify a program? I know that I for
| one wouldn't be programming.

Well, having spent the first few years of the programming side of my life
coding *assembler* (for the LGP-30, IBM 1410, IBM 1620, DEC PDP-10, PDP-8,
PDP-11, Zilog Z-80, to name a few), I assure you that serious assembly-
language programmers very quickly build up a library of macros and
subroutines that are roughly at the level of abstraction as "libc"
(or even Lisp!), and then code at the level of macro and/or subroutine

Of course, the macro systems available for assemblers in those days
were of nearly the same power as Lisp macros (that is, dynamic compile-
time re-writing of code), making the whole task of abstraction building
a *lot* easier!

Was it Tony Hoare who said this?

    "I always program in the same language, no matter what the compiler is."


Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA		<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607