4 ms·

I suspect you're misunderstanding the logic of his point. He's saying that fancy feature X (runtime-modifiable everything) doesn't help with necessary feature Y

by apl 16y ago

I suspect you're misunderstanding the logic of his point. He's saying that fancy feature X (runtime-modifiable everything) doesn't help with necessary feature Y (simple package management), and not that X prevents Y. Clojure and certain Scheme implementations prove that X and Y are compatible, but most CLs have atrocious package management when compared with Python, Ruby or even Java. Lisp's extreme flexibility doesn't remedy that at all.

jcromartie 16y ago
> Lisp's extreme flexibility doesn't remedy that at all. Why would it? I'm not sure I understand the argument. And also, just for an example: In my experience, Clojure's package management beats Rubygems for purposes of a project. You specify your dependencies and their versions (including the Clojure language itself) and a script updates them from the whatever repos you specify. It's taken the Ruby ecosystem some time to come up with RVM and Bundler which accomplish the same things. These kinds of things (package management) are available for Lisp languages today. Of course CL only recently got http://www.quicklisp.org/ http://www.quicklisp.org/ which seems to make some strides in this area.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]