Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rutgers!dptg!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Lisps
Keywords: Common Lisp, standardization
Message-ID: <3568@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 29 Sep 89 22:55:34 GMT
References: 
Reply-To: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka,ihp,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 49

In article  fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
>The Lisp family boast a vast range of languages, some very much alike,
>some not. Like the Algol family, the Lisp-family has had it's share of
>standardization efforts (e.g. Common Lisp), attempts at OOPL (CLOS,
>Loops, ...), etc. 

Though correct from a researcher's point of view, this strikes me
as somewhat misleading to an industrial user, particularly in the
United States.  The future - and for the most part, even the
present - of US industrial Lisp *is* for all practical purposes
Common Lisp, the language undergoing ANSI standardization.  Major
vendors are not building new industrial-strength systems on any
other dialect, nor are major industrial users planning new
purchases of any other.  Extensions are welcomed (though they are
not to be used in portable code); subsets and variants are
rejected.

First-generation object-oriented programming systems have been
useful both for proving concepts and for building systems, but
again, the future is in the second generation: the Common Lisp
Object System, subject of ANSI standardization.

If this is not a generally fair summary of US industrial Lisp usage,
please let me know.  I grant that the situation in research and teaching
is significantly different:  Theoretical and pedagogical considerations
are given great weight, as one would expect.  Scheme, in particular,
is quite popular on college campuses.

>The Lisp family is constantly evolving, producing new variants all the
>time, some with fancy features, some different because of different
>points of view, etc. (Can you say "Modula3", "Oberon", "YouNameIt").

This is a description of research, but not of industrial practice.
It is true, however, that even Common Lisp will evolve at a faster
rate than languages such as C and Ada, simply because Lisp's syntax
and semantics are specifically *designed* for extension.  Luckily,
those same facilities of Lisp make back-compatibility easier as well.

>If they are both, say, Common Lisp systems, thing will be OK (provided
>you didn't use X11 or something nasty like that...).

Yes, a graphics standard for Common Lisp is still "emerging."


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@ihlpf.att.com

Standard disclaimer.