[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Packages: where is the beef ?
email@example.com (Kari Systa, Tampere Univ. Technology, Finland) writes:
> ... I'm starting to understand that Lisp is not that good
> as a (general purpose) programming language. ...
If Lisp has some problems due to the fact that it is a self contained
environment with alot of names, fine. But to conclude that it is not
a good general purpose language is a non sequitur. The only other
widely used language that rivals lisp for protyping is Smalltalk.
It can be argued that CLOS is superior to Smalltalk classes and that
Lisp, being a 'high level machine language', enables writing more
efficient code than can be achieved with Smalltalk.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Simon Leinen) writes:
> ... with 973 symbols, noone can be expected to know them all ...
But very few of those 973 symbols are commonly used terms. The commonly
used ones are a small set which a Lisp programmer learns as easily as
a programmer of a conventional language learns the keywords of that
language. At least in Lisp, you have the ability to shadow those
keywords, if you (unwisely) chose that you must.