home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: xserver.sjc.ox.ac.uk!barlow
- From: barlow@xserver.sjc.ox.ac.uk (Daniel Barlow)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Why garbage collection?
- Date: 1 Feb 1996 14:44:59 GMT
- Organization: none
- Message-ID: <4eqjlb$ig7@news.ox.ac.uk>
- References: <4ecmfo$as9@news2.ios.com> <4ei4og$la1@info.epfl.ch> <s08spgxh3r1.fsf@lox.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <823078760snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: xserver.sjc.ox.ac.uk
-
- In article <823078760snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>,
- Cyber Surfer <cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk> wrote:
- >C++, coz it's there, and everybody knows it. Sometimes the only factor
- >that counts is the cost ("Lisp programmers know the value of everything,
- >and the cost of nothing", in which case, "C++ programmers know the
- >cost of everything, and the value of nothing"), and a typical C++
- >development system will cost about $300.
-
- I don't know lisp. I've done little bits of elisp (but I understand that
- that Doesn't Count) and I've played with scheme (actually guile), but
- that's about all. I'd like to learn (curiosity value) but I'm
- holding off until I can think of something to write in it. And until
- I have more time.
-
- The limiting factor is surely not cost. I have gcc and gcl on my
- computer; they were both entirely free. In fact, I understand that gcl
- comes precompiled as part of the popular Slackware Linux distribution.
- I know of approximately one linux user who actually installed it (except
- by accident). Why the low takeup?
-
- One possible consideration (at least among the unixheads that I swap
- opinions with) is that the only lisp most people on unix see is emacs.
- And emacs is big, slow, and stops regularly to tell you it's
- `garbage collecting'. This might not be representative of GC in general,
- but I bet a lot of people think it is.
-
- --
- Web: http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/users/barlow Mail: daniel.barlow@sjc.ox.ac.uk
-
- panic("bad_user_access_length executed (not cool, dude)");
-
-