Common Lisp the Language, 2nd Edition

1.1. Purpose

Common Lisp is intended to meet these goals:

Commonality

Common Lisp originated in an attempt to focus the work of several implementation groups, each of which was constructing successor implementations of MacLisp for different computers. These implementations had begun to diverge because of the differences in the implementation environments: microcoded personal computers (Zetalisp, Spice Lisp), commercial timeshared computers (NIL-the ``New Implementation of Lisp''), and supercomputers (S-1 Lisp). While the differences among the several implementation environments of necessity will continue to force certain incompatibilities among the implementations, Common Lisp serves as a common dialect to which each implementation makes any necessary extensions.

Portability

Common Lisp intentionally excludes features that cannot be implemented easily on a broad class of machines. On the one hand, features that are difficult or expensive to implement on hardware without special microcode are avoided or provided in a more abstract and efficiently implementable form. (Examples of this are the invisible forwarding pointers and locatives of Zetalisp. Some of the problems that they solve are addressed in different ways in Common Lisp.) On the other hand, features that are useful only on certain ``ordinary'' or ``commercial'' processors are avoided or made optional. (An example of this is the type declaration facility, which is useful in some implementations and completely ignored in others. Type declarations are completely optional and for correct programs affect only efficiency, not semantics.) Common Lisp is designed to make it easy to write programs that depend as little as possible on machine-specific characteristics, such as word length, while allowing some variety of implementation techniques.

Consistency

Most Lisp implementations are internally inconsistent in that by default the interpreter and compiler may assign different semantics to correct programs. This semantic difference stems primarily from the fact that the interpreter assumes all variables to be dynamically scoped, whereas the compiler assumes all variables to be local unless explicitly directed otherwise. This difference has been the usual practice in Lisp for the sake of convenience and efficiency but can lead to very subtle bugs. The definition of Common Lisp avoids such anomalies by explicitly requiring the interpreter and compiler to impose identical semantics on correct programs so far as possible.

Expressiveness

Common Lisp culls what experience has shown to be the most useful and understandable constructs from not only MacLisp but also Interlisp, other Lisp dialects, and other programming languages. Constructs judged to be awkward or less useful have been excluded. (An example is the store construct of MacLisp.)

Compatibility

Unless there is a good reason to the contrary, Common Lisp strives to be compatible with Lisp Machine Lisp, MacLisp, and Interlisp, roughly in that order.

Efficiency

Common Lisp has a number of features designed to facilitate the production of high-quality compiled code in those implementations whose developers care to invest effort in an optimizing compiler. One implementation of Common Lisp, namely S-1 Lisp, already has a compiler that produces code for numerical computations that is competitive in execution speed to that produced by a Fortran compiler [11]. The S-1 Lisp compiler extends the work done in MacLisp to produce extremely efficient numerical code [19].

Power

Common Lisp is a descendant of MacLisp, which has traditionally placed emphasis on providing system-building tools. Such tools may in turn be used to build the user-level packages such as Interlisp provides; these packages are not, however, part of the Common Lisp core specification. It is expected such packages will be built on top of the Common Lisp core.

Stability

It is intended that Common Lisp will change only slowly and with due deliberation. The various dialects that are supersets of Common Lisp may serve as laboratories within which to test language extensions, but such extensions will be added to Common Lisp only after careful examination and experimentation.

The goals of Common Lisp are thus very close to those of Standard Lisp [31] and Portable Standard Lisp [51]. Common Lisp differs from Standard Lisp primarily in incorporating more features, including a richer and more complicated set of data types and more complex control structures.

This book is intended to be a language specification rather than an implementation specification (although implementation notes are scattered throughout the text). It defines a set of standard language concepts and constructs that may be used for communication of data structures and algorithms in the Common Lisp dialect. This set of concepts and constructs is sometimes referred to as the ``core Common Lisp language'' because it contains conceptually necessary or important features. It is not necessarily implementationally minimal. While many features could be defined in terms of others by writing Lisp code, and indeed may be implemented that way, it was felt that these features should be conceptually primitive so that there might be agreement among all users as to their usage. (For example, bignums and rational numbers could be implemented as Lisp code given operations on fixnums. However, it is important to the conceptual integrity of the language that they be regarded by the user as primitive, and they are useful enough to warrant a standard definition.)

For the most part, this book defines a programming language, not a programming environment. A few interfaces are defined for invoking such standard programming tools as a compiler, an editor, a program trace facility, and a debugger, but very little is said about their nature or operation. It is expected that one or more extensive programming environments will be built using Common Lisp as a foundation, and will be documented separately.

There are now many implementations of Common Lisp, some programmed by research groups in universities and some by companies that sell them commercially, and a number of useful programming environments have indeed grown up around these implementations. What is more, all the goals stated above have been achieved, most notably that of portability. Moving large bodies of Lisp code from one computer to another is now routine.