16:29:36nyef"Expecting the Lisp community to provide COMMON LISP for little or no cost is not sensible." -- Brooks and Gabriel, "A Critique of Common Lisp", 1984.
16:30:20nyef"[A] small program should run in a small amount of physical memory." -- Same paper.
16:31:02nyef(Yes, let's *ignore* data size in this statement, and concentrate only on program size.)
16:33:29nyef"Small programs should not lead to inherently poor paging performance." -- Wasn't it known at the time that all paging systems were vulnerable to certain access patterns causing worst-case paging performance, and that a program to generate such an access pattern would, itself, be tiny?
16:41:29beachThe entire argument about program size is flawed, because it assumes that each (Unix-style) program requires an entire Common Lisp system to itself.
16:41:57beachEven sticking most of the Common Lisp system in a shared library fixes the size problem.
16:44:17nyefYes-and-no. Given a hypothetical machine with, say, 1MB of RAM, it should be plausible to be able to write a *program* that can run well on that hardware, even if it can't easily host a full CL system.