4 ms·
> its design (up to Perl 5, at least) smacks of total Lisp ignorance. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/rec.arts.startrek.misc/lHdCwSeQM8k/_AR_qcS1E2
by kod 8y ago
> its design (up to Perl 5, at least) smacks of total Lisp ignorance.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/rec.arts.startrek.misc/lHdCwSeQM8k/_AR_qcS1E2sJ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/rec.arts.startre...
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.lang.clos/edcyFOBLMeo%5B51-75%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/comp.lang.clos...
- kazinator 8y ago"I did dabble in LISP more than I did FORTRAN and it looks like oatmeal with toenail clippings."
- rurban 8y agoYes. If Larry knew how a LISP is implemented, many internals would have looked better. the symtab, the optree, the stack and esp. the lexicals. Just compare to the ruby internals. But at least he knew the terminology, and got the concepts right. In opposition to php and python which failed miserably.