Not sure where this "analysis" comes from, but the demise of the Lisp Machine has generally been agreed that it had to do more with the speed of technological a

Not sure where this "analysis" comes from, but the demise of the Lisp Machine has generally been agreed that it had to do more with the speed of technological advances than Common Lisp -- by the time Common Lisp was standardized, for all intents and purposes, all Lisp Machine companies where already defunct. Common Lisp was definitely not designed with the intention of better performance, the intention was literally to have a _common_ Lisp language that multiple implementations could use and where porting programs would be much easier. One needs to remember that when Common Lisp was first drafted, there where dozens of Lisp dialects -- all of them different. The list of CPUs is a very large span, some predating Common Lisp (CLtL1 is from 1984, CLtL2 from 1990, and ANSI Common Lisp from 1996) by close to several years (VAX, from 1977). But other than that, the idea of a not-Unix system does fall into those two buckets ... make it Unix, or rewrite everything. One can see this in Oberon, Smalltalk-78, Mezzano, etc...