Why don't people like lisp?

[Rainer Joswig]

In article <9aZib.4$pt4.1610 at news1.telusplanet.net>,
 Wade Humeniuk <whumeniu at nospamtelus.net> wrote:

> Terry Reedy wrote:
> 
> > My contemporaneous impression, correct or not, as formed from
> > miscellaneous mentions in the computer press and computer shows, was
> > that they were expensive, slow, and limited -- limited in the sense of
> > being specialized to running Lisp, rather than any language I might
> > want to use.  I can understand that a dedicated Lisper would not
> > consider Lisp-only to be a real limitation, but for the rest of us...
> > 
> 
> Well its not true.  Symbolics for one supported additional languages,
> and I am sure others have pointed out that are C compilers for
> the Lisp Machines.
> 
> See
> 
> http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~moeller/symbolics-info/symbolics-tech-summary.html
> 
> Section: Other Languages
> 
> It says that Prolog, Fortran and Pascal were available.
> 
> Wade
> 

ADA also.

Actually using an incremental C compiler and running C on type- and bounds-checking
hardware - like on the Lisp Machine - is not that a bad idea.
A whole set of problems disappears.