"Its Me" <itsme213 / hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<d18%a.190441$xg5.136669 / twister.austin.rr.com>...

> I am not convinced that there is a deep tradeoff of environment Vs. language
> expressiveness and dynamism. The Lisp world back in the 80's had a
> combination of superb environment (easily comparable to Smalltalk) and heavy
> use of arbitrarily sophisticated code generation (Lisp macros). All parts of
> the environment, including the debugger, were amazingly macro aware.

This is drifing off topic, but I'd like to know more.  Was the LispM
environment truly comparable to (modern) Smalltalk?  Current Lisp
environments (I've used Allegro and LispWorks) really don't come
close, especially when it comes to tools like version control - what's
the Lisp equivalent of ENVY or StORE?  Or, since that's where this
thread started, of the Refactoring Browser?

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here - Lisp is wonderful,
and there are lots of things in CL (and in Scheme, and in Ruby for
that matter) that I miss in Smalltalk.  But I honestly do think that
Smalltalk hits a sweet spot in terms of tool support, and I have a
hard time imagining how certain tools would work in the Lisp world -
like versioning by semantic chunks instead of raw text/s-exprs.  If
those problems were in fact solved back in the 80s, I'd love to hear
about it.