3 ms·
Unless you're implying that each Lisp interpreter is its own language, I don't think your contention really applies. If I learn Lisp on Lispworks, and go sit do
by 0x44 19y ago
Unless you're implying that each Lisp interpreter is its own language, I don't think your contention really applies. If I learn Lisp on Lispworks, and go sit down at GNU CLisp, I'm not programming in a different language - I'm using a different sub-set thereof. When I sit down to a Ruby program, and then switch to a PHP script - there are fundamental differences between the two languages that transcend the library or features either provides.
Ralphc's point wasn't about there being a clear winner in the dynamic language space, but that each of the languages mentioned had one canonical interpreter.
- brlewis 19y agoThe issue here is human decisions, not a taxonomy of programming tools. Or do you suggest that Lisp dialects diverge further? If you called them separate languages, would there be a better chance of them growing popular?
- 0x44 19y agoOn the contrary, I'm suggesting that Lisp dialects do not diverge as far from each other as the various dynamic languages do. That means that the idiosyncrasies each dialect has are going to be more glaring. The other dynamic languages don't (yet) have dialects, so you don't have to take the design decisions of the interpreter into consideration - after you've decided on the language. In that case, I think that there might be a better chance of a sub-set of Lisp dialects becoming popular if they were described as separate languages. It will be interesting to see how Arc develops from MzScheme, and whether or not it becomes more popular with non-Lispers.