COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M1BASL30\M2BASB30\M3NGR25\M4NGR20\F2\CSTANFORD UNIVERSITY
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M1BASL30;\M2BASB30;\M3NGR25;\M4NGR20;\F2\CSTANFORD UNIVERSITY
\F3\CSTANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305
\F4COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT\←L\-R\/'7;\+R\→.\→S   Telephone:
\←S\→.415-497-4971
\F1\CMarch 27,1975



Dr. Thomas A. Standish
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California
Irvine, Calif 92664



Dear Dr. Standish:

\J
Thank you for your response. Though it was unfavorable, it was quite
valuable and I understand your discomfort with my presentation.
I have withdrawn my letter.
I think the difficulty  stems from two sources. First the letter \F2is\F1
sloppy; there are too many "cheap shots"; there is too much unsubstantiated opinion. 
The real difficulty however is that a letter is the the wrong way to
develop my argument. My argument involved two points: the inadequacy
of I1 and second, my alternative -- nominally LISP. 

Perhaps the issue of CACM68 can be examined in a letter. But raising an
issue without suggesting solutions is usually unsatisfying and unconvincing.
Adding a conclusion to the effect that "language XYZ solves the problem"
compounds the felony.  The difficulty is even more acute if XYZ happens
to be LISP. As a programming language, LISP is horrible; as a language for
data structures, LISP is incredibly short-sighted. So my argument against
I1 and for LISP requires careful elaboration of what I mean by LISP.
It is this which I attempted to convey in my letter; my presentation
was unsatisfactory.
I have been writing a book  advocating my approach; it is nearly finished and
will be published within a year. 

I think a better way to discuss my views
would have been to  write an article whose basic content is an elaboration of
the table of contents of that manuscript. 
I plan to write such an article, but hoped that a letter would suffice.
The reason for the book and the reason for the letter stem from my
general depression about the field of programming, both education and
practice. I have been programming, teaching and studying in the field
since 1959; hardware has changed, but programming really changed very little.
We really are training sophisticated coders in our programming classes
and until that's changed we're stuck.

To the other two points you raised:
I still believe compiler techniques are blown much out of proportion to
their worth. I too cover string manipulations, table searching, arrarys,
threading and the like, but in the context of implementation, storage structures and
efficiency.

If you like I could send you a copy of my manuscript.
\.
\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L

Yours sincerely,



John R. Allen
Research Associate
Computer Science Dept
Artificial Intelligence Lab

\←S\→L