3 ms·
That Lisp began in 1958 is mostly irrelevant. It (Common Lisp) is a fully-modern, Turing-complete language with a first-rate object system and supports all pro
by na85 11y ago
That Lisp began in 1958 is mostly irrelevant. It (Common Lisp) is a fully-modern, Turing-complete language with a first-rate object system and supports all programming paradigms.
On top of that the implementations have all been regularly updated over the years and many are extremely mature and well-optimized.
Do you equate newness with quality, as seems to be common on HN?
Perhaps an OS written entirely in this month's JavaScript framework, deployed on Docker, using monads-as-a-service or whatever the hipsters have come up with lately would be more your cup of tea.
- rodgerd 11y ago> Do you equate newness with quality, as seems to be common on HN? When the link's thesis is "these OSes design years ago are old and therefore bad" it is hardly unreasonable to point out the language the author prefers is even older.
- pjmlp 11y agoBecause the UNIX based OS are based on PDP-11 architecture with the compromises required to fit in such systems. Whereas already in the 60s, we had hardware systems like the Burroughs b5000 that could be fully programmed in Extended Algol and Espol, with zero Assembly. The idea, as I see it, to base modern OSes in better older architectures that were lost to the mists of time. Actually the mobile OSes, with their memory safe languages seem to already be moving into this direction.
- na85 11y ago>these OSes design years ago are old and therefore bad That's not the link's thesis. Equally flippant but more correct would be to say "these OSes were written in memory-unsafe languages because hardware limitations demanded it back then, therefore they are bad"
- anentropic 11y agoa Turing-complete programming language? How novel!
- na85 11y agoMy point was that there isn't anything you can do in Golang or Rust or any other FOTM language that you can't do in Lisp.