Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages) From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/01/26 Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Scott Schwartz | I don't think it does even out the costs. For one thing, you didn't | measure the cost of (load "lotto.o"). you're being stupid on purpose. you don't include compilation, assembling, and linking time in C programs, so why do you do it for Lisp? go away. #\Erik -- 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.