3 ms·
I just don't think yet another Lisp is going to do it, and I've written a few [0]. Lisp is fine for what it is, one extreme of the spectrum and a child of its
by codr7 7y ago
I just don't think yet another Lisp is going to do it, and I've written a few [0].
Lisp is fine for what it is, one extreme of the spectrum and a child of its time; but far from the final answer to anything.
We would be better off triangulating new ideas than polishing our crufty icons. Lisp was a giant leap, hopefully not the last.
[0] https://github.com/codr7/g-fu https://github.com/codr7/g-fu
- codingdave 7y ago> I just don't think yet another Lisp is going to do it Going to do what? I wasn't aware there was a specific goal that had to be met here?
- soulofmischief 7y agoHell, if we're talking about the next emergent layer of software, autonomous code / artificial intelligence, I'd say LISP has a better shot than most languages. Performance-critical code can still be refactored into C but LISP has much more built-in capability for advanced genetic coding and reflection.
- throw_xyzyz 7y agoC is pretty far away from the hardware these days. We are missing the true low level languages that C used to be in the 80s/90s.
- codr7 7y agoLisp had a shot since 1958, somewhere along the way it even made sense.
- codr7 7y agoChange anything, I thought that was obvious.
- braythwayt 7y agoIf someone picks up Bel and is changed by it, then something has been changed. YOUR problem is that you have an all-or-nothing perspective that change only matters if it is massive, global, change-at-scale. Change matters in the small. If building Bel changed nobody except PG for the better, then it is still change and it still matters. Just not to you. As a bonus—and this is a happy accident, not core to my point—sometimes change in the small unexpectedly leads to change in the large. See microcomputers, web browsers, and so many other things scoffed at as things that simply could never displace the incumbent technologies.