Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp

[Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <address@hidden>]

   To: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <Guy.Steele@sun.com>
   Cc: ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
   Subject: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp 
performance was Re: problems with lisp
   From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
   Date: 04 Sep 2003 14:38:48 -0400
   User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
   
   
   Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <Guy.Steele@sun.com> writes:
   > P.S. Yes, per Pascal Costanza, Common Lisp with proper tail
   > recursion and call/cc WOULD be a better language.
   
   Quick question -- was the decision to make CL have separate function
   and variable bindings mostly for compatibility with mac lisp and lisp
   machine lisp, or was it something deeper philosophically? I find
   scheme's lisp 1 semantics almost always more comprehensible and easier
   to use...

I think compatibility was the strongest component in the
decision, though there were some who preferred separate
bindings on other grounds (ranging from mathematical tradition
to the very pragmatic issue of wanting to be able to use
LIST or EXP as a variable name).  But this issue consumed
a great deal of discussion time during the Common Lisp
standardization process and there were passionate arguments
on both sides of the issue.

--Guy Steele