David Hanley <email@example.com> writes:
> > the SPARC architecture has several instructions that C compilers doesn't
> > use, but which are convenient with type-tagged languages. the _fact_ is
> > that it has an the instruction, with Sun's recommended mnemonic "taddcctv",
> > that is specifically useful in Lisp, and specifically unused in C. other
> > instructions are also measurably useful in languages _other_ than C.
> Ok, so you found one example on one CPU. Great. Do you have any
> Because when you say 'cpu's XXX' it means that most or all cpu's have
> feature. But there's more..
Eriks original statement was only that dynamic typing was well
optimised in good lisp implementations, and that there was "often"
support from the hardware.
He didn't say "always" support from the hardware, or even "mostly"
support. Only that there are some hardware platforms which provide
some support. He then went on to prove that probably the most common
RISC platform (Sparc) has some support. I'd say he proved his case.
> > C is _not_ the be-all, end-all of programming languages and C is _not_ the
> > universal assembler that some would like it to be. that you cannot even
> > put this instruction to use without a lot of prior work that you also have
> > a hard time doing in C, shows that the SPARC designers thought of more than
> > increasingly myopic C crowd.
> I would think it's better to be myopic than to have your eyes shut.
> The fact is, most newer chips are not designed for lisp at all. The
> operations certianly are not based on type.
> Accusing someone of being stupid, and making stupid arguments oneself
> does make someone look like a fool though; though it's not who you're
I didn't see Erik claim that chips are designed for lisp. All he said
was that you can better implement dynamic languages with assembler
than compiling through C. This is true for all architectures, even
No wonder Erik gets angry with the pure ignorance that is put forward