Re: [tlug] ruby and python in Japan

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@??>]

Jean-Christophe Helary writes:
 > 
 > On 1 mars 07, at 23:06, Curt Sampson wrote:
 > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > >> (un) Common Lisp:
 > >>    Rest in peace.
 > >
 > > Oh, I don't know about that. For all the issues it has, it does have
 > > some very good points, too, from what I understand, such as the very
 > > large set of standard libraries. I think it actually could have been
 > > what Java is, had there been a freely available implemenation.
 > 
 > There are plenty of free (as in GNU-free) implementations of common  
 > lisp.

Curt's point is that in Java's takeoff period 1994-1998 or so, there
were not.

However, I think his case is pretty weak, in that causality went the
other way around.  There have been advocates of porting GNU Emacs to
Common Lisp since CLTL1 (why does that abbreviation always remind me
of HP Lovecraft?), yet rms has steadfastly resisted doing so.  Ditto
XEmacs, but in both cases I think the big problem is the attraction of
Scheme for the core elisp implementers, even though Emacs Lisp is a
lot closer to CL than to Scheme.