Learning curve for common lisp

[SLong]

Soren Dayton wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some friends and I are thinking about a project, and we were wondering
> about using CL (including CLOS). Given backgrounds with C++,
> etc. (fairly substantial) and Scheme and ML (less substantial) what sort
> of learning experience should we be expecting?
>
> Given the size of CL, we are a little worried that we'd begin by writing
> pretty lousy code, and have to go back at some point and rewrite some
> stuff. Is this a serious problem? What sort of time scale should we be
> aware of? When will we hit that point?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Soren

CL/CLOS will be a piece of cake if you know C++. And guess what? No
memory
management or pointers! It is true that the language is the result of
many different
flavors, but it's mostly a matter of redundancy.

I'm fluent in 7 computer languages, and I can say that my skills with
each ALWAYS get better with time. If you can afford to rewrite, go for
it.

sl

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:38:37 +0000, SLong <stev...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>Soren Dayton wrote:

>CL/CLOS will be a piece of cake if you know C++. And guess what? No
>memory
>management or pointers! It is true that the language is the result of
>many different
>flavors, but it's mostly a matter of redundancy.

[Snip]

I already posted to this thread once. I indicated that I thought Common
Lisp was more difficult to learn than C/C++.

I should probably have stated it in this way:

The Common Lisp is more difficult to learn than C (if you're coming
from a C background).

The extensions to Common Lisp that make up CLOS are probably a bit
easier to understand (and more powerful) than the extensions to C that
lead to C++ (a bit of a simplification).

--
Kenneth P. Turvey <ktu...@SprocketShop.com>

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to
resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by
change of circumstances, become his own. -- Thomas Jefferson

[Erik Naggum]

* ktu...@pug1.sprocketshop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey)

| The extensions to Common Lisp that make up CLOS are probably a bit
| easier to understand (and more powerful) than the extensions to C that
| lead to C++ (a bit of a simplification).

another item on this issue is that Common Lisp benefited from CLOS in
very serious ways, so now it's hardly possible to talk about Common Lisp
without CLOS even when none of the CLOS features are _requested_ by the
programmer, but it's still possible to talk about C without the ++, and
as far as I know, none of the benefits of C++ are available unless you
request those features specifically.

I think this makes Common Lisp easier to understand and CLOS even less of
a burden for an experienced Common Lisp programmer to learn, but as is
usual, you need to discover the need before learning how to do it.

#:Erik
--
SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.

[SLong]

I'm going to quote you on this; it's a fundamental concept that is often
difficult to get across.

"...you need to discover the need before learning how to do [it]..."

SL