> While I do find the "put up or shut up" message entertaining, it's a category error to confuse what has been done with what can be done. Still, I would consider it a win if some Lisper rises to the challenge.
The whole point is that there are an awful lot of talkers talking a big game but no none of them ever manages to actually show something working.
The challenge was presented.
I read it and I gotta say it sounds ignorant to me: lots of people have bootstrapped systems using Forth. It's not as common these days but it still happens.
And I think the wiki page predates sectorlisp, which project answers (in my opinion) the challenge, no?
I can't speak to the ease of implementing Lisp in assembly, but I found it easy to do in C. It's trivial to implement Lisp in Lisp if you're willing to let the hosting Lisp do the heavy lifting. The person who I'm quoting isn't a very clear writer though, and his usage of "LISP" suggests he's not exactly up to date on the state of Lisp, so perhaps I'm missing some unstated context that makes his statement sensible.
While I do find the "put up or shut up" message entertaining, it's a category error to confuse what has been done with what can be done. Still, I would consider it a win if some Lisper rises to the challenge.
Since the C language and modern CPUs basically co-evolved, it's not surprising that they're a good fit for each other. The story might be different on a Symbolics machine.