funkyj <email@example.com> wrote:
| There is no technical reason a Common Lisp implementation
| couldn't be made into a nice scripting language.
What do you mean "be made into"?!? I find standard CL to
already be a quite nice scripting language all by itself!!
Sspecifically, of the 379 scripts of various kinds in my personal
"~/bin/" directory, 61 of them are some form of Common Lisp or Scheme:
28 a /usr/local/bin/cmucl -script script text executable
2 a /usr/local/bin/cmucl -core /usr script text executable
4 a /usr/local/bin/clisp script text executable
1 a /usr/local/bin/clisp -Kfull script text executable
18 a /usr/local/bin/mzscheme -r script text executable
2 a /usr/local/bin/mzscheme -fm- script text executable
2 a /usr/local/bin/mzscheme -R/usr/ script text executable
3 a /usr/local/bin/elk -l script text executable
The only reason that Lisp/Scheme is "only" 16% of the total is
that many of the other 84% were written *decades* before I even
started using Lisp/Scheme. In fact, almost all of the scripting I
do these days is done with Common Lisp [usually CMUCL], so I expect
that 16% to continue to grow over time.
 The oldest scripts that I still use on a daily basis have
May 1986 filesystem dates on them, but I know that many of those
actually date from circa 1981. [I suspect that when moving
stuff around in May 1986 that I accidentally did a "cp -r"
instead of "cp -rp"... (*sigh*)]
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607