4 ms·
>At least optional typing and macros are not considered to be universal benefits for programming. That's just your opinion. >Having a ton of features has been
by flavio81 8y ago
>At least optional typing and macros are not considered to be universal benefits for programming.
That's just your opinion.
>Having a ton of features has been proven in many occasions to be counterproductive. Paradox of choice, higher learning curve, etc.
Ok, let's see you need to get the numerical value of several big integrals. You have two choices:
a. Pen and paper plus calculator.
b. Computer with sophisticated computer algebra system
Learning curve in (b) is way higher. Alternative (b) is also way more productive.
Helicopters have also a steeper learning curve than cars.
>At least optional typing and macros are not considered to be universal benefits for programming.
So perhaps you don't know the benefits. Lisp Metaprogramming benefits become obvious after taking the time to learn them.
Optional typing dramatically increases execution speed, something that is very relevant and important in 2018.
- oblio 8y agoYou seem to be a bit too... enthusiastic about this conversation, for my tastes :) I won't go into everything cause it would take way too much time, but I have to point one thing out: > Optional typing dramatically increases execution speed, something that is very relevant and important in 2018. As compared to what? I'm guessing your assumption was that I was thinking about purely dynamic languages? Not really, I was thinking about using static languages with type inference.
- foo101 8y agoI don't understand what point is. Do you agree that Lisp metaprogramming has benefits or do you disagree with that? If you agree, then what is your point? That we should not use a powerful language because it is not popular? Or that features in popular languages are the only features worth having? If you disagree, can you elaborate what exactly about Lisp metaprogramming do you not find powerful? That would make your arguments more concrete. Otherwise you are just going around in circles stating the same opinion over and over again which is really only your opinion that many of us don't seem to agree with.
- jabl 8y agoIf you're choosing a powerful but "unpopular" language, perhaps a more interesting comparison would be between lisp and, say, haskell. Sure, you're sacrificing homoiconity and macros, but you get strong static typing and purity etc.
- flavio81 8y agoTrue, but they support entirely different philosophies to software development: the "build a cathedral" (Haskell) versus "create a living organism" (Lisp), to paraphrase an Alan Perlis quote.