Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: Symbolic: A doomed effort, or it's time to get my lead-lined jockstr

Author: Gareth McCaughan

Date: 18:05:17 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread

Robert Hyatt wrote:

> My statement was written in 1997.  In general Lisp _was_ interpreted.  Of
> course, so was BASIC.  Yet there were basic compilers as well.  My primary
> point was speed.  Lisp is slow.  It always was slow.  It always will be slow.

There were plenty of decent Lisp compilers in 1997.

> LISP is like a host of other programming languages that have their place.
> Prolog.  Snobol4.  Even COBOL.  And used in their place, they work well.  But
> high-performance computing is _not_ their "place".

Just so that we know how much weight to give to this statement
(in comparison, say, with what Tord Romstadt has been saying),
could you briefly summarize your experience with Lisp in the
last 10 years? Thanks.

--
g

• Re: Symbolic: A doomed effort, or it's time to get my lead-lined jockstr Robert Hyatt 19:02:10 02/16/04
  • Re: Symbolic: A doomed effort, or it's time to get my lead-lined jockstr Gareth McCaughan 18:02:54 02/19/04

This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.