3 ms·

"A brilliant and insightful analysis." I asked one of my CL hacker friends about the L1/L2 question, and he waved has hands a lot and said that Richard Gabriel

by edw 16y ago

"A brilliant and insightful analysis." I asked one of my CL hacker friends about the L1/L2 question, and he waved has hands a lot and said that Richard Gabriel said that L2s were better. I read the essay that he alluded to (but didn't actually read, apparently) and it read as a compelling argument FOR L1s until the end: [Quoting from the paper, available at http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Technical-Issues.html] The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces. In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without. In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp. There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed… [End quote] So I have a CL expert, writing for the standard committee, arguing that all things considered, L2s suck, but we're stuck with keeping CL an L2. So that, in addition to my own experience with CL, Scheme, and other languages, is the basis of my informed opinion.

edw 16y ago
I want to know who just down-voted this comment and what the basis for doing so was.
ohyes 16y ago
In that paper he is not arguing that L2s suck. It is a much better analysis than that. "The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces." These are the first 3 points about notational simplicity and referential transparency. "In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without." These points are contested by some. (overall it seems a matter of aesthetics, objectively single namespace is more elegant). "In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp." Practical considerations, being the other 10 or so points about implementing and using it relatively efficiently, and using macros. Some of which are a toss up, others are in favor of one or the other... "There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed, and it would be the job of future Lisp designers to take lessons from Common Lisp and Scheme to produce an improved Lisp." (Clojure) I'm okay with your informed opinion, what I have a problem with it is you putting it in such a stark relief with little to no stated basis for the opinion.
- edw 16y ago
  I didn't say that he argued against an L2! He ultimately recommended that CL stay an L2. That is why my hand-waving CL fanboy friend referred to it. Please keep in mind that if I were in his position I too would have recommended keeping CL an L2, in large part because CL is the New Jersey Lisp, and doing the Right Thing is a Bad Idea if it gets in the way of things like backward compatibility with metric shit-tonnes of existing source code. And for your benefit, and for the benefit of all the karma pharmers, I'll try to excise my HN writing of every last bit of hyperbole—or life of any kind. The model HN comment apparently invites readers to put their hands on their chins and sagely nod themselves to a self-satisfied sleep.

by edw 16y ago

edw 16y ago

I want to know who just down-voted this comment and what the basis for doing so was.

ohyes 16y ago

In that paper he is not arguing that L2s suck. It is a much better analysis than that. "The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces." These are the first 3 points about notational simplicity and referential transparency. "In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without." These points are contested by some. (overall it seems a matter of aesthetics, objectively single namespace is more elegant). "In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp." Practical considerations, being the other 10 or so points about implementing and using it relatively efficiently, and using macros. Some of which are a toss up, others are in favor of one or the other... "There is a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp passed, and it would be the job of future Lisp designers to take lessons from Common Lisp and Scheme to produce an improved Lisp." (Clojure) I'm okay with your informed opinion, what I have a problem with it is you putting it in such a stark relief with little to no stated basis for the opinion.

edw 16y ago
I didn't say that he argued against an L2! He ultimately recommended that CL stay an L2. That is why my hand-waving CL fanboy friend referred to it. Please keep in mind that if I were in his position I too would have recommended keeping CL an L2, in large part because CL is the New Jersey Lisp, and doing the Right Thing is a Bad Idea if it gets in the way of things like backward compatibility with metric shit-tonnes of existing source code. And for your benefit, and for the benefit of all the karma pharmers, I'll try to excise my HN writing of every last bit of hyperbole—or life of any kind. The model HN comment apparently invites readers to put their hands on their chins and sagely nod themselves to a self-satisfied sleep.