Re: Y Store now C++

[Dorai Sitaram <address@hidden>]

[Daniel Weinreb]
> 
> Dorai Sitaram wrote:
> 
> >Unattended source-to-source transformation is fairly
> >easy in s-exp-based languages. 
> >
> Actually I've never seen that done, ever, in real life situations.
> 
> > It may well be one of
> >the selling points of such languages.
> >
> It wasn't at Symbolics, where we were trying hard to sell Lisp.

Forgive my English.  I quite agree that Lisp's
code-as-data doesn't guarantee profits for a company
selling a Lisp (for money).  I only meant that those
who appreciate Lisp appreciate it for its code-as-data
capabilities.  
 
> > For this reason,
> >I doubt that Lisp2 is being reluctantly tolerated
> >merely for backward compatibilty. 
> >
> Well, that's why Common Lisp was like that. We did not want to tell
> all our users that they had to run a tool over all the programs that would
> somehow try to find all those name conflicts and fix them: they would
> have screamed bloody murder.

I take it you mean that this approach was actually
considered and rejected?  Hm, I didn't think it was
considered, not because the people concerned wouldn't
have thought of it, but because they must have actively
preferred Lisp2 over 1.  Cf Pascal Costanza's
recent question on why one should switch to Lisp1?  How
would you answer someone like him so that he would be
persuaded? 

I don't see this source transformation so unworkable at
all... if there was will behind it.  Assuming Lisp1 is
the preferred mode, only legacy programs would need to
be converted, and only by their distributors, and only
once.  As a coding and patching issue this is well
within the capability of Lispers of the reported
caliber, who would have made it thoroughly painless for
users.  As a business strategy issue, I don't
know as I'm not in that kind of business, so I'll defer
to you.