[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(Not Necessarily Common) LISP Implementation
- To: drl%vuse.vanderbilt.edu@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
- Subject: (Not Necessarily Common) LISP Implementation
- From: jpff%maths.bath.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 88 21:24:34 BST
- Cc: Common-Lisp@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: "David R. Linn"'s message of Fri, 15 Jul 88 21:59:50 CDT <8807160259.AA00247@backup.vuse.vanderbilt.edu>
- Sender: jpff%maths.bath.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
I tried to reply to your original message with commnets on POPLOG and
the BALM system at Utah, but these where systems without an
interpreter. In my opinion a system such as you describe would not be
LISP as it loses all the advantages of program development.
Having said that I have an experimental system which compiles LISP
into C, and that is linked with a fixed library. The target is a
fixed languages rather than a LISP system. Is that what you mean?
Another possible interpretation: we wrote a LISp system which was
constructed by compiling LISP into ALGOL-60, the final thing looking
like LISP, but with no compiler.