Re:Compiling Dynamic Languages (2013) [pdf]
by msla on Sunday April 14, 2019 @09:22AM
(#19659264)
> 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.
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.