4 ms·
I have tried really hard to fall in love with LISP style languages. This includes implementing my own LISP interpreters/compilers just for fun. I also know enou
by mbrodersen 6y ago
I have tried really hard to fall in love with LISP style languages. This includes implementing my own LISP interpreters/compilers just for fun. I also know enough Haskell (and Idris) to compare LISP style languages with the “opposite” end of the functional language spectrum. And I an the maintainer of a high performance functional programming language at work. In the end I still end up never reaching for LISP or Clojure when solving real world programming challenges. The key reason is that I am more productive with strong types. The same reason why I initially loved Ruby and then stopped using it the moment I tried to build anything bigger with it. I realise that not having types makes some people happy. That’s great. It just doesn’t make me happy.
- yw3410 6y agoWhoa, this was a point about syntax (non-Algol vs. Algol) being overstated. Haskell and Idris absolutely fall in non-Algol languages that make people do a double-take. For the record I like lots of languages - dependent types are awesome. I find that the language I reach for will mostly be a function of the problem space. Just an FYI, certain Lisps have static typing as well.