>>Kenny Tilton <ktil...@nyc.rr.com> writes:

>>>This correspondent's chin hit the floor when he realized this speaker
>>>was from Microsoft:

> http://pdcbloggers.net/Question_and_Answer/PNL02/Patrick_Dussud.category

>>>Mr. Dussud was favored with one of the closing plenary sessions of the
>>>conference, and used it to suggest Common Lisp cripple itself in various
>>>ways (help me, someone: static typing is all I remember) so it could
>>>have the honor of running on Microsoft's CLR. Well, OK, the motivation
>>>would be in the title of the paper "Re-inventing Lisp for Ubiquity".

>>Its the inevitable refrain from people not actually trying to do
>>something with Lisp, but flogging some abstract agenda which they think
>>relates.  There must be a corollary to Greenspun that addresses the
>>consequences of trying to force high level languages into a C/C++
>>runtime.  Either you shoot off your feet or you trip over your
>>shoelaces- either way your nose ends up in the dog poop on the sidewalk
>>in front of you.

> I'll probably get flamed for this, but when I looked at the list of talks on
> ILC2005's web site, it made me glad I wasn't there. At least half of what I
> saw was either crapware, or peddleware, or reware. Reware is something
> that's already been built a dozen times, but presented as brand new and
> innovative. Lisp copiled to .NET? There are a dozen of those that compile
> to JVM and/or .NET. Strictly typed Lisp?! - ML. Strictly typed Lisp
> compiled to .NET? - SML.NET (sp?) and F#.

> (I'm sure I've just offended a bunch of people, but hey, there's a 50%
> chance they've already been offended by my earlier comments about their
> fathood anyway)