3 ms·
i see "first to do X" as neutral. maybe it's indicative of more innovation and goodness elsewhere, but maybe it's done better in the next iteration or language.
by diN0bot 18y ago
i see "first to do X" as neutral. maybe it's indicative of more innovation and goodness elsewhere, but maybe it's done better in the next iteration or language.
"best to do X" is clearly a good, though, which is listed as part of the 1st reason.
an important reason not mentioned is library support. for practical reasons many programmers want not just "a good language" but a language where they don't have to re-invent the wheel or forge new territory (of course, that can be satisfying, too, if one has the time). this is likely the case with any language that has been around a while.
i don't know if this is the case with lisp. did that reason seem not important enough for the list, or are libraries/frameworks lacking?
- sctb 18y agoThe topic of libraries comes up frequently when Lisp is mentioned. If a certain task or problem arises that isn't directly related to or considered one of the main problems that you're trying to solve with your program, you would consider the use of a library to accomplish that task. If there is such a library available, go ahead and use it. If there isn't, Lisp programmers can spend a short amount of time implementing only what they need without generalizing the task. This isn't quite re-inventing the wheel since you have a unique set of constraints, and it's certainly not as onerous a task as writing a generalized library. There are those (Edi Weitz for example) who do tend to implement complete libraries, and the Lisp community is of course grateful for that. Libraries and frameworks can be useful, but they also have the effect of levelling the playing field. Lisp empowers the programmer to `discover' a natural solution to their problem in a unique way.