Not sure how that works. I think Python bites so I do not use it, I do not labor over detailed treatises to post on comp.lang.python. But it is a great treatise so I will promote it some here.
We have perhaps yet another measure of how great is Lisp: even its haters are its fans. They come to boo, but come they do. Like Gorgeous George and his understudy, Muhammad Ali, Lisp puts ticket buyers in seats as much to be hated as used.
WJ on comp.lang.lisp wrote:
Dying is easy, comedy is hard. Humor must have within it some truth for it to work. The laugh comes from the accuracy followed by a sharp turn to a put-down, the sharp turn being the key. If Lisp is not like COBOL there is no sharp turn and the put-down becomes mere name-calling. Sticks and stones and all that.
Please try not to try to be funny again.
We need the spec when we want to get fancy with format, 'mkay?
The only thing I do not use is series. Hmmm, I should go look that up.
For most of you, yes. Lisp is for smart people.
That explains the smell. Sorry, I forget the author of that one.
He went from Lisp to Constraints and butchered that, from there to Java and can take a lot of credit for that steaming pile of turd, and has now abandoned that failure to work on... Fortran?
50? Check again.
Yeah, Graham said that, too: a language has to fit in your head. I am thinking he did not program enough to learn it really well*. And he prolly did not have the hyperspec an F1 away either.
* I am pretty sure a constraint on a language I intend to use all the time should not be that I have to be able to remember it all when I am not using it all the time.
You know Lisp is the perfect language precisely because it lost its momentum (died) and lives on. Other languages need their Next Big Thing momentum.
The French are still pissed off about Lance Armstrong!
Come on, we have "goto". What else does he want?
Can I respond to all these "CL killed Lisp" quotes by pointing out that they are wrong? I am developing The World's Greatest Algebra software on Windows 8 (after 7 and Vista and XP), pushing to GitHub, pulling onto Linux and away we go*. Standards avoid the disaster of Scheme, which brilliantly recreated the problem CL had to fix: disparate implementations leading to unshareable code. *Okay, I am using compilers from the same vendor, but I am also using a ton of open source written mostly for SBCL.
Common Lisp worked, but it got the blame for Minsky's (inter alia) over-promising and under-delivering on AI.
Constrained? Where? Who? How? I am writing amazing code and having a blast between bong hits. Where's the problem?
I think DW meant "looking more like Scheme" as a good thing. Ouch. I used Arc for a while and it had one namespace and it was not fun.
I think some of these smart guys are thinking themselves into to many rules and regulations and way too much "should". I am not that bright so I am free to just get on with the programming, and when one is programming one knows what works and what does not. One namespace does not.
Except there is no non-Loop code posted to comp.lang.lisp that I cannot make clearer and faster with loop. And it took me a very long time to come around to loop, so I should know. Yes, the syntax can make you weep*. Until you learn it. Then it is an undisputable win. * Hey, it is a DSL. Ya gotta learn it, like any language. And it is a DSL for iteration, something that comes up more than a little in programming, so the effort (and the DSL itself) are justified.
I wonder if Dan wrote enough code. Loop never surprises me, now that I have learned not to close over loop variables.
Hey, that's the guy that did IF*, a DSL for conditions!
Why does all the above miss its mark? Because it is 2013 and all that was written when CL got created back in the eighties and we are still using Lisp and when we do we use Common Lisp. All those quotes are by people who saw the politics and the big spec and were unhappy about the compromises and the size of the resulting language. But I use it all (except series) so they were wrong about the size.
Meanwhile the raison d'etre of unification was achieved. Yobbos are writing open source on SBCL and I am going to use it to change the way the world learns math, atop AllegroCL. A brave attempt to resume the fragmentation (scheme) failed. Mostly because they were wrong about language design, but also because of -- wait for it -- fragmentation. Perfect.