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 Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
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
 
Joost Diepenmaat  
View profile  
 More options May 4 2008, 2:38 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Joost Diepenmaat <jo...@zeekat.nl>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 20:38:58 +0200
Local: Sun, May 4 2008 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: Are we close to a Lisp boom ?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

philip.armit...@gmail.com writes:
> On May 4, 2:44 pm, Majorinc Kazimir <fa...@false.false> wrote:
>> I do not think so. Lisp is significantly harder to learn than,
>> say, Ruby or Lua, and it provides less advantages to average
>> programmer than ever.

> If you'd said "beginner programmer" then I'd agree that there are
> probably easier ways to learn programming than Common Lisp although
> even this is partly due to the confusion over what to download rather
> than a fault of the language itself. As for "average programmer", it's
> less clear what that means. If it means programmers who are not
> sufficiently interested in using more powerful programming tools then
> I think it's hard to make the argument that Lisp should be dumbed down
> for them. As you point out, there are other languages which excel in
> this area.

Agreed. I'm also not convinced that Ruby and Lua are a big step
towards closing the gap to good Common Lisp implementations -
especially in the performance area CL kicks ass, and Ruby for example
is mostly "just" a cleaned-up Perl (and Perl also kicks Ruby's ass in
performance). And I am apparently one of the few people here who think
Ruby is quite pretty and likes Perl.

Besides, *fuck* the average programmer. Average programmers should be
in middle management where they can't mess up the code base (much).

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/


 
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