3 ms·
if you're thinking of developing a web app in lisp but haven't looked at python or ruby, you might consider them -- remember, it's not just the raw language but
by dhouston 20y ago
if you're thinking of developing a web app in lisp but haven't looked at python or ruby, you might consider them -- remember, it's not just the raw language but also the surrounding infrastructure, and python (django, turbogears) and ruby (rails) have arguably much more developed frameworks, and also arguably have most of the interesting language features that would draw you to lisp in the first place.
the point is the language is only one piece of the equation -- you want to be spending your time developing your app, not rolling your own supporting elements (templating systems, init scripts, form validators, sql bindings/mappers, etc.) and of course i'm sure others will point out reddit's switch from lisp to python.
- vikram 20y agoMost people say that you shouldn't use lisp because it doesn't have libraries. Well they are only half right. You shouldn't use lisp, because most lisp libraries have very little documentation. Lisp has a lot of libraries. You have to be willing to read code (i.e. examples/tests) to figure out how to use them. http://www.cliki.net/Library http://www.cliki.net/Library Assuming that the most precious commodity is development time. I'd say rails/django don't even come close to UCW in getting stuff done.
- rms 20y agoWhy is lisp so sparsely documented?
- jaggederest 20y ago(because-function-names-are-so-long-and-detailed 'post)
- vikram 20y agoFor me saying what a function does isn't good enough, when one is documenting an api. Examples are a must. The other problem is that the lisp packaging system is a bit weird. If a library doesn't have an ASDF definition its almost non-existent for me.