Mark Conrad <nos...@iam.invalid> wrote in message <news:email@example.com>...Not necessarily. Those compilers that produce C instead of machine
> In article <cf333042.0304101405.55edf...@posting.google.com>, Kaz
> Kylheku <k...@ashi.footprints.net> wrote:
> > There are Lisp implementations that compile to C ...<snipped>...
> Excuse me again (everyone) - I really got these threads all messed up.
> When I started these threads, I thought that the Lisp compilers
> The Lisp compiler that makes the standalone executable creates
object code can also produce stand-alone executables.
> Thanks for pointing that out.That's right. C is used this way not only by some Lisp
> As _you_ pointed out, Kaz, there are also CL implementations that
implementations, but by the implementations of other high level
languages, because using C eliminates the need to write
machine-specific code generation. C can only be used this way because
it is popular and because it has certain machine-language-like
semantics, like the flexible treatment of memory with pointer
arithmetic, and the ease by which the type system can be defeated (at
the penalty of writing C that is no longer well-defined by the ANSI C
> Is there anything that C is 'better at' than Lisp? <MCL Lisp>C is currently better at being popular, and consequently better at
> (other than C being able to work on practically every hardware platform)
being found everywhere, including rare embedded systems. There are
probably machines for which your only programming alternative beside
assembly language is C.
C is more cleanly separated into a language and library than Lisp, and
People use C for writing embedded operating system kernels and other
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.