4 ms·

It's common, including in "commercial environments" - eg. I've seen multiple things that would qualify as "lisps" built in banks. Why? Probably because they ar

It's common, including in "commercial environments" - eg. I've seen multiple things that would qualify as "lisps" built in banks. Why? Probably because they are easy to make and extremely expressive given that limited effort. Is making an expressive custom language with no tooling to solve a single problem a good idea? Nope. Do people do it anyway? Yes. Edit: And never forget Greenspun's 10th rule: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."

oblio 6y ago
> Edit: And never forget Greenspun's 10th rule: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp." Maybe it's time to put this to rest? The rule is 27 years old and I'd be shocked if something like the .Net BCL (for example) is not bigger than Common Lisp, these days. And I'm not sure we can get a consensus that the .Net BCL can be considered "ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation". That rule comes from a time when half the software written was still writing its own string and linked list data structures/classes. Now people just use standard libraries.