4 ms·
No, you misunderstood the comment. http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2010/08/three-principles-of-lisp.html http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2010/08/three-principles
by davidmathers 16y ago
No, you misunderstood the comment.
http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2010/08/three-principles-of-lisp.html http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2010/08/three-principles-of-l...
One of the author's projects is writing a lisp.
edit- actually it's right there at the top of the page on the right. Motivation: Lisp.
- brlewis 16y agoThat's not "Motivation: Lisp". Read the fine print: "by the people who didn't bring you A.I." Yes, he has a project to build his own Lisp, because he doesn't like existing ones. That's a detractor.
- davidmathers 16y agoTouche. On the other hand he calls Common Lisp one of "the few acceptable dynamic languages." http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2010/07/c-40-industrial-response-to-lisp.html http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2010/07/c-40-industrial-respo... In other words: CL sucks but all the other dynamic languages suck more. My semantics don't label that as "detraction" but yours may differ.
- brlewis 16y agoGiven the full quote I still call it detraction: "What's more worrying is that all dynlangs, including the few acceptable ones, like Common Lisp and Factor, are starting to look horribly dated against C#. Seriously."