Subject: Re: Why is Lisp not more widely used? From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1995/08/19 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <19950819T154728Z@naggum.no> [Blake McBride] | 32 bit Microsoft and WATCOM compilers (I wouldn't even try Borland or | Symantic). why wouldn't you "even try" Borland or Symantec (note spelling)? | Keep in mind that these compilers are used by thousands and thousands | (millions?) of programmers. a huge number of users do not make anything non-brain-dead, unless you wish to say something about those millions at the same time, in which case it is more likely that something used by millions of _amateurs_ _is_ brain-dead. which is the brain-dead video tape format: VHS or Betamax? which is used by professionals, and which by millions of casual users? | They are also used to compile Windows 3.1, Windows NT now, if true, this would be very interesting. please provide references! | I think it is somewhat nieve to call these compilers "brain dead" just | because they don't have boundless limitations. if you mean "naive", then no. from _experience_ and sophistication comes the realization that arbitrary limits is very bad for you and your users. in case you didn't know, "naive" and "experienced" or "sophisticated" are as close as you get to antonyms. it is precisely _naivite_ that invite the unwashed masses to write code with arbitrary limits. just because the unwashed masses outnumber the professionals doesn't mean they're right. in fact, quite the opposite is true in the general case. | Yes. As previously posted, the standards do not allow for arbitrarly | large modules (or missing argument macros). look, just because you can't read standards doesn't make them mean what you want them to mean. of _course_ standards "allow for" arbitrarily large anything. what standards do, is to avoid _requiring_ arbitrarily large objects or numbers of things, but instead _require_ that no implementation impose a maximum smaller than some specific limit. the "minixum maximum" rule has two goals: (1) discourage boneheads from implementing standards, and (2) ensure the maximal portability of programs within those limits. in no way does the "minimum maximum" requirements mean that compilers or programs that exceed them are non-conforming. I can't believe you have managed to lead people on for so long. you're obviously clueless and uncurably so. if you wish to make a shot at changing this impression, make up your mind that you have posted your last guess and that you will make all the effort that is required to ensure that you will never again post wrong information. above all, do not lie. #<Erik 3017836048> -- trigraph ??!??! die