Re: Lisp

[Svenn Are Bjerkem <svenn dot bjerkem at fujitsu-fme dot com>]

Stan Shebs wrote:
> 
> Erik Sigra wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I just looked at kernel/lisp.[ch] without getting any wiser. It was hard for
> > me to just look at the whole mess and try to understand what all the
> > identifiers are supposed to mean; for example ATYPE, CONS, cons, caddr, car,
> > cadr, cdddr, cddr, cdr, MTYPE, TTYPE, UTYPE and many more.

[snip]

> Since Lisp has mostly fallen out of use (does AutoCAD still use it?),
> I've speculated on alternatives, such as XML.  So far XML seems like
> an overly complicated way to accomplish what are basically simple
> tasks, so there's not much incentive to change yet.

emacs use it, Cadence use something lisp-like and guile is an
application control implementation of lisp, like TcL, used in gEDA and
probably many more that I do not know about. If lisp is a feasible
language for its purpose in xconq, I think there is no need to change it
before any other language has proven better. The history line of lisp
tells me that it is going to survive for some more decades. I'm no Lisp
guru and I know that what I don't understand I should leave alone until
I get more knowledge. I think good comments is a better investment in
any case.

Kind regards,
-- 
Svenn Are Bjerkem