3 ms·

Again, this is covered in RPG's "Good news, bad news" (I'm busy, google it) and, to a lesser extent, "The bipolar Lisp programmer". RPG's main argument is that

Again, this is covered in RPG's "Good news, bad news" (I'm busy, google it) and, to a lesser extent, "The bipolar Lisp programmer". RPG's main argument is that Lisp is "MIT-style" the Right Thing, while C is "New Jersey-style" solve-the-right-problem-at-the-right-level. In other words, Lisp is like an expensive speaker system that's hard to configure correctly for ordinary sound systems, while C is something that works better for the average user. The economics upshot of this is: target Lisp at the high-level critical applications Erlang and Haskell are targeting -- big telecom routing logical problems, flexible quant finance modelling, etc. Stop trying to replace the Scripting Language du Jour. You can't compete against C++; it's everywhere from Facebook to Arduino.

ohyes 15y ago
> C is something that works better for the average user. difficulty of using vs. difficulty of using correctly. (And I'm not even sure worse is better makes sense in a modern context). Difficulty of using a programming language (regardless of results) is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent writing code in that language. If the majority of users writes C or C++ code all day, C and C++ become 'better for the average user.' If the majority of your users write Common Lisp or Scheme all day, CL and Scheme become 'better for the average user'. C and C++ are much more difficult to actually use correctly (without regard for who the average user is), mainly because there are many more ways to screw up when you are working at such a low level. The myth of Lisp being difficult makes me boggle. There isn't even a syntax to memorize! Speed, safety, flexibility, dynamic debugging and compilation, optional static typing... You don't even need the higher level aspects of the language to reap benefits from these features. With Quick-lisp if I need a library I just load it and use it (plug and play). Why not replace my C++ and scripting languages with Common Lisp if I can get the best of both worlds? The economics of this is that if I already know Common Lisp, and am willing to teach those around me, I am a fool to use anything else.
sedachv 15y ago
I have a blog post about this in the making, but in the meantime, I'd like to point out that there is zero quantifiable evidence to RPG's worse is better thesis. There are many aspects of Lisp/LispMachines vs C/Unix that can account for why they're used where they are, and he completely ignores the obvious ones that people have (and continue to!) complain about: C/Unix is cheap/free and runs everywhere. This wasn't the case for Common Lisp until the early 2000s! I think RPG's good news, bad news came to the wrong conclusion and made some inappropriate dichotomies (Right Thing vs Worse is Better) that unfortunately have become memes that lead people astray.

ohyes 15y ago

> C is something that works better for the average user. difficulty of using vs. difficulty of using correctly. (And I'm not even sure worse is better makes sense in a modern context). Difficulty of using a programming language (regardless of results) is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent writing code in that language. If the majority of users writes C or C++ code all day, C and C++ become 'better for the average user.' If the majority of your users write Common Lisp or Scheme all day, CL and Scheme become 'better for the average user'. C and C++ are much more difficult to actually use correctly (without regard for who the average user is), mainly because there are many more ways to screw up when you are working at such a low level. The myth of Lisp being difficult makes me boggle. There isn't even a syntax to memorize! Speed, safety, flexibility, dynamic debugging and compilation, optional static typing... You don't even need the higher level aspects of the language to reap benefits from these features. With Quick-lisp if I need a library I just load it and use it (plug and play). Why not replace my C++ and scripting languages with Common Lisp if I can get the best of both worlds? The economics of this is that if I already know Common Lisp, and am willing to teach those around me, I am a fool to use anything else.

sedachv 15y ago

I have a blog post about this in the making, but in the meantime, I'd like to point out that there is zero quantifiable evidence to RPG's worse is better thesis. There are many aspects of Lisp/LispMachines vs C/Unix that can account for why they're used where they are, and he completely ignores the obvious ones that people have (and continue to!) complain about: C/Unix is cheap/free and runs everywhere. This wasn't the case for Common Lisp until the early 2000s! I think RPG's good news, bad news came to the wrong conclusion and made some inappropriate dichotomies (Right Thing vs Worse is Better) that unfortunately have become memes that lead people astray.