4 ms·
I'm a big fan of Lisp, but this is definitely not true. Do you think the CMUCL (a popular Common Lisp application) team who went on to make non-sexp based Dyla
by rsheridan6 18y ago
I'm a big fan of Lisp, but this is definitely not true. Do you think the CMUCL (a popular Common Lisp application) team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? Or the functional programming community in general? Some of the members of that community who are of a certain age would have cut their teeth on Lisp, but they ended up designing/using *ML and Haskell. Or how about Alexander Stepanov, who went from Scheme to C++ and designed the STL? Or Guy Steele, who invented Scheme but went on to help design Java and Fortress? These are not stupid people.
- pg 18y agoDo you think the CMUCL team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? No, but close. They were designing a language for other people who did. The original intention with Dylan was to create a Lisp that was made more accessible for mainstream programmers. Ditto Guy Steele on Java: "we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp."
- rsheridan6 18y agoI didn't get to this in a timely manner due to a Christmas vacation, but I'll bite anyway. I didn't know that Dylan was considered a LFM rather than a LFSP by its creators, but I do know that at least of them gets s-expressions and still thinks they're a bad idea. See Dave Moon's suggestion: http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt