3 ms·
Yes. I don't follow COBOL and can't judge it. If there is a modern COBOL, I certainly won't judge it by the COBOL that existed in the 90s. To throw the questio
by phaylon 15y ago
Yes. I don't follow COBOL and can't judge it. If there is a modern COBOL, I certainly won't judge it by the COBOL that existed in the 90s.
To throw the question back: Do you think Lisp is useless because it's old, or do you think the Lisp of the 80s doesn't have that much to do with the Lisp of 2011, even if the syntax didn't change that much?
- danssig 15y agoI think Lisp is still mostly the same as it was in the 80's and even before. But Lisp was always incredibly powerful and still has ideas that haven't reach mainstream yet. Unlike Lisp and COBOL, Lisp still has a few more things to teach us.
- phaylon 15y agoIf that's your opinion then I hope you're happy with it. I can only tell you that I, my colleagues and many others find great use in Perl, find that it is also very powerful, and continue to further the community, the ecosystem and the core language in anyway we can or enjoy. It solves our problems and it solves them better and better each year. As I said above, it's about the value of the technology for you, your project and your team. I can't judge what's of value to you, or why something is of value to you. But you can't judge either why or what is valuable to me. We have reasons to use Perl that aren't pure stubbornness. Edit: Forgot about the Lisp part. I actually believe that in the world of Lisp/Scheme there were many things that changed for the better, and it was driven by developments such as Arc, Clojure, Racket, Guile and so on. There are people that think every Lisp is unmaintainable, slow, outdated, has no libraries, has no community, has an unsupporting community, and so on. And my point is that the answer is always more complicated than just "they are right" or "they are wrong."