3 ms·
Interesting that the lisp prototype took the least amount of time to develop, yet was considered less understable code than the haskell prototype(s).
by NikkiA 8y ago
Interesting that the lisp prototype took the least amount of time to develop, yet was considered less understable code than the haskell prototype(s).
- tmm84 8y agoIf it used macros I bet that had some effect on the ranking. Macros and CLOS are two things that really take some time to sink in and understand for programmers that don't use lisp much.
- sshine 8y agoI bet it did. In the extreme case, using macros makes every program a slightly different DSL.
- lispm 8y agoI don't think they wrote any macros. The language they used is Common Lisp with a special library for programming with relations on top. So they used a DSL library for relational programming. Something like a Lisp with a kind of in-core database with a rich language for it. That kind of programming is extremely rare.
- sevensor 8y agoI thought it was interesting how quickly the lisp result was dismissed. I'm not particlularly partisan one way or the other, and it's to the authors' credit to have included it at all. However, this is a paper with "foregone conclusion" written all over it.