3 ms·
If anyone's considering picking up newLISP, be advised they made some widely criticized design decisions (such as omitting lexical scope, closures, pass by refe
by prodigal_erik 16y ago
If anyone's considering picking up newLISP, be advised they made some widely criticized design decisions (such as omitting lexical scope, closures, pass by reference, and GC) intended to speed up the interpreter. Last I heard, they don't plan on having a compiler.
http://arclanguage.org/item?id=2911 http://arclanguage.org/item?id=2911
- mahmud 16y agoomitting lexical scope, closures, pass by reference, and GC None of those decisions were made for performance reasons, but because the creator of newLisp had no idea how to do them (lexical scope and call by reference were initially performance hacks, and actually make programs faster and/or smaller.) A better name for the language would have been newBASIC, but even Basic is garbage collected. People who intend to use newLisp really need not suffer the parentheses. The language exists in familiar form as QBasic.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoAccording to http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html, at the time implementing lexical scope was a leap of faith. It was broadly assumed to be less efficient.
- zem 16y agoyeah, lush (http://lush.sourceforge.net/ http://lush.sourceforge.net/) is a lot more interesting in the alternative-lisp space, but they too omit lexical scoping :(