More fuel for the language wars (was Re: Stallman & Ousterhout && (TCL || !TCL) && practicing cypherpunks)

[Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>]

    Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:51:42 -0700
    From: strick@yak.net

    I am not new to LISP or PERL or AWK or POSTSCRIPT or FORTH or SHELL or
    BASIC or HYPERTALK or various other interpreted langauges.

Lisp is no more or less of an `interpreted language' (a misnomer IMO)
than C.  Interpreters exist for both languages.  Compilers exist for
both languages.  You can use either without running any interpreted
code . . . or without running any compiled code.  A good lisp coder
with a good lisp compiler can typically outperform a good C coder with
a good C compiler for most tasks -- although it's a lot easier to
become a reasonable C coder and to find a reasonable C compiler than
to become a reasonable lisp coder and find a reasonable lisp compiler.
I'd venture a guess that there's a *lot* more
pretty-reasonably-performing C/C++ code out there than lisp code.

Just my attempt to start another thread that's almost completely
unrelated to crypto :-)

			Rick

--
``C'' combines the power of assembly language ... with the flexibility of
assembly language.  -- Anonymous