Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.lisp
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion can lisp do what perl does easily?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Christopher Browne  
View profile  
 More options Mar 29 2000, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: cbbro...@news.hex.net (Christopher Browne)
Date: 2000/03/29
Subject: Re: can lisp do what perl does easily?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Tom Breton would say:

>William Deakin <wi...@pindar.com> writes:

>> Tom Breton wrote:

>> > The Perl system was much easier to find and install.  RedHat bundled it, so I
>> > basically just pushed a button. CLISP has rpms too but they were so nonstandard
>> > I ended up just building it from source.

>> Do you think that this a serious comparison between lisp and perl?

>Since it was a comparison of easy availability, yes.

>> For example: Under Linux the Debian clisp and cmucl installations are as seamless
>> as the perl installation. Also the under Solaris 2.6 I experienced problems
>> installing perl whilst found the installation of cmucl and clisp binaries to be
>> straightforward.

>Obviously those systems' mileage varied.

This parallels the performance benchmarks for "null scripts;" the net
results are not necessarily meaningful except for establishing minor
claims.

But.

It nicely establishes that it is *NOT* fair to say that Perl is
"simple" to configure and install whilst CL (whether in CLISP or CMUCL
incarnations) are "complex."

To the contrary, Perl is _rather_ hairy, and the problems that there
have occasionally been with Debian make it manifestly clear that this
is so.  It is not clear that CL (in *any* incarnation) is more
"hairy;" I'd have no problem with the contention that all that's
"hairy" about it is peoples' _perceptions_ of the complexity of CL...
--
Why do scientists call it research when looking for something new?
cbbro...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html>


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google