4 ms·

I guess you can view newLISP in at least two different ways: a naive implementation of it, or a reboot of it, branching from a much older LISP than most today d

by zephjc 17y ago

I guess you can view newLISP in at least two different ways: a naive implementation of it, or a reboot of it, branching from a much older LISP than most today do. I think of the new LISPs out there, Clojure has its act together much more than newLISP - it's quite sophisticated in a lot of ways, it's making rapid progress, and now has a relatively large development community for such a new language. But for newLISP users: if it works, it works, and more power to you.

itistoday 17y ago
I think Clojure is a wonderful language, and I do not see newLISP as replacement for it. From the article: In the same sense that you wouldn’t use JavaScript to write an iPhone app (some beg to differ), you wouldn’t use use newLISP to write an operating system, a music player like iTunes, or a web browser like Firefox. For such endeavors I recommend without hesitation Clojure, Scheme, C, Objective-C, etc. In other words, languages geared for solving complex, low-level problems, as quickly as possible.