3 ms·

Looks like the authors completely ignored Lisp related work spanning almost half a century. They will have their minds blown if they ever check out SBCL, for ex

Looks like the authors completely ignored Lisp related work spanning almost half a century. They will have their minds blown if they ever check out SBCL, for example.

lispm 8y ago
And a bunch of other 'dynamic' and/or 'dynmically typed' language implementations which for example compiled via C: Smalltalk-to-C from 1986: http://live.exept.de/doc/online/english/misc/history.html http://live.exept.de/doc/online/english/misc/history.html Prolog to C https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220986213_wamcc_Compiling_Prolog_to_C https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220986213_wamcc_Com... https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/faqs/lang/prolog/prg/part1/faq-doc-11.html https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/faqs/lang/prolog/prg/p... GNU Prolog compiler: http://www.gprolog.org http://www.gprolog.org APL: http://snakeisland.com/aflps90.ps http://snakeisland.com/aflps90.ps Search this page for various BASIC compilers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BASIC_dialects
msla 8y ago
> Looks like the authors completely ignored Lisp related work spanning almost half a century. They will have their minds blown if they ever check out SBCL, for example. So help me, I think it's the name. Or, rather, the fact the name hasn't changed in a half-century. LISP is Lisp is Lisp, right? SBCL's optimized Common Lisp must be the same as mid-1960s MACLISP must be the same as LISP 1.5 directly from the Stone Tablets, or academia, whichever's closer. Compare Algol: It was Algol up until PL/I, then it did a quick detour of being called Ada, and now it's C and C++ and Java and C# and Javascript and Python and Go and Rust. All-New All-Different, see? They must be greatly innovative, changing names so much.