5 ms·
I think (today's) Lisp could be blub, but only if Lisps were to become the standard category of programming languages. Then some other more advanced meta-lisp t
by rplevy 18y ago
I think (today's) Lisp could be blub, but only if Lisps were to become the standard category of programming languages. Then some other more advanced meta-lisp that is a few layers of abstraction up, and applying some yet-undiscovered principles of computer science in its high-level semantics would be at the cutting edge, and the vanilla lisps would be mundane and practical-seeming.
- olavk 18y agoFor some some Lisp-developers Lisp is blub relative to Haskell.
- utx00 18y agohow come? could you give an example?
- olavk 18y agoI've met Lisp-programmers which simple didn't understand the point of Haskell - all those arbitrary constraints (no IO, no mutation) which just required elaborate workaround (monads) to get back to square one. This makes Lisp "blub" (for them).