"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On November 7, 2005 10:10 AM Kai Kaminski wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't feel like participating in the language arguments going
>> on at the moment. Still I would like to voice my support for Tim's
>> position in this matter.
>
> Thank you for participating anyw
Hello all,
It's time for me to weigh in on some issues again.
>>Converting Boot code to Lisp is trivial - just run the compiler.
>>That is the first step that Tim has already used in his recent
>>work to which I am objecting.
I agree that this is not the best way to convert the system to
Lisp.
On November 7, 2005 10:10 AM Kai Kaminski wrote:
>
> I don't feel like participating in the language arguments going
> on at the moment. Still I would like to voice my support for Tim's
> position in this matter.
Thank you for participating anyway. :)
>
> In particular, I agree with him that B
Hi everyone,
I don't feel like participating in the language arguments going on at
the moment. Still I would like to voice my support for Tim's position
in this matter.
In particular, I agree with him that BOOT is *not* higher-level than
Lisp. There is not a single feature in Lisp that can't be e
