5 ms·
Any "10x argument" is just lazy thinking. 'Productivity' is governed by so many factors, its just unrealistic that 'choice of programming language' would have s
by wirrbel 5y ago
Any "10x argument" is just lazy thinking. 'Productivity' is governed by so many factors, its just unrealistic that 'choice of programming language' would have such an enormous effect (unless you benchmark CL against let's say COBOL).
On a fun note: The old guard of Common Lisp (like Norvig IIRC) was very fond of Python when it hit mainstream because for them it had a whole lot of the feature set that lisp had which other popular languages lacked.
[disclaimer: I am a die-hard Lisp and Clojure fan but the other fans just make me cringe at times]
- pjmlp 5y agoPity that Python did not embrace the Lisp features related to machine code generation.
- agumonkey 5y agoYou mean having bytecode and native code ? maybe they can start that for 3.2+ .. surely it would be more interesting than optional type signatures :)
- mbrodersen 5y agoI agree. And I think that the constant BS claims of certain Lisp advocates actually damages the Lisp community. Especially the silly “I am smarter because I use Lisp” claims you often see in Lisp articles. My answer is always: OK great. Why don’t you instead first build some impressive stuff in Lisp and then show us how Lisp made it possible for you to build it 10x faster. Then you might actually make people believe you. Especially given that pretty much all successful software out there is written in (or run on top of) C/C++.
- medo-bear 5y agothis is just personal taste but i think that GNU Emacs blows any other software ever written out of every universe that ever existed :)
- mbrodersen 5y agoAsk Vi lovers if they agree :)
- medo-bear 5y agoof course they do. they just chose evil-mode
- mbrodersen 5y agoHahaha you are funny.
- mbrodersen 5y agoMaybe because it is written in C? Hehehehe :)
- medo-bear 5y agoits written in emacs lisp and c. most of the code base is in the former :)