From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Thorpe Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: member returns list Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 02:44:32 +0100 Message-ID: <87wpw0e58f.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> References: <87bndfauey.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1441763111 28986 80.91.229.3 (9 Sep 2015 01:45:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 01:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "Pascal J. Bourguignon" Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 09 03:44:59 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZURV-0002r6-At for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 03:44:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38876 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZURV-0005Be-L7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:44:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42823) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZURD-00055v-G0 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:44:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZURA-00038E-9G for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:44:39 -0400 Original-Received: from outbound-smtp04.blacknight.com ([81.17.249.35]:60390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZURA-000375-4f for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:44:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail01.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.10]) by outbound-smtp04.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE2D798EDC for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 01:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: (qmail 18093 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2015 01:44:33 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO RTLaptop) (rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com@[109.77.148.72]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 9 Sep 2015 01:44:33 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87bndfauey.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> (pjb@informatimago.com) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 81.17.249.35 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:107094 Archived-At: "Pascal J. Bourguignon" writes: > "Pascal J. Bourguignon" writes: > >> Emanuel Berg writes: >> >>> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" >>> writes: >>> >>>> Because each implementation worked on a different >>>> machine with a different OS (if an OS was available >>>> at all). >>> >>> Yeah, but there were many machines at the time of the >>> "crazy language" C as well, still, there aren't >>> a plethora of C dialects. (If you don't count all the >>> epigone languages that borrowed heavily the syntax >>> of C.) >>> >>> But C is famous for its portability (which also >>> proliferated Unix) - perhaps the exception that >>> confirms the rule, that Lisp is cooler than C? >> >> It's not exactly the same time period, and not the same kind of >> machines. >> >> Basically, C was running on small machines, that were all the same. >> After C the micro-processors appeared, and since they were so bad, they >> soon were optimized to run C code efficiently. I don't really agree with Pascal's view. Anyway, there were some other reasons why Lisp implementations differed between machines. As Pascal said, the early Lisp implementations were on mainframes. Later on people tried to port Lisp to minicomputers and microcomputers. But, Lisp was already quite complex and it wasn't possible to fit all the features. So, some of the features got excluded, and which were excluded varied. Pascal criticizes early micro-processors for being bad. But, to those who used them it was often a choice of micro-processor or no processors at all. In that situation compile-only languages with a strong emphasis on efficiency (such as C) were the natural choice. We're all in a different situation now. BR, Robert Thorpe