3 ms·

The issue is that there is no one solution for all problems and all contexts. ANY given language was written in response to a given set of problems in a given

The issue is that there is no one solution for all problems and all contexts. ANY given language was written in response to a given set of problems in a given set of contexts. Change one thing to be outside that domain and the fit is less good. Change almost everything and the fit is a misfit. For example: a 5 lb slege hammer is a very good tool for breaking rocks. Now fix a Rolex Watch with it. Its not so good of a tool, is it? The answer is understand the problem and its context. Then select the tool that fits good enough (YMMV). Otherwise you will soon find yourself in a world of hurt and still not have a good solution to your problem. I am sure Lisp has a problem set and a context set for which its a good match. Though I haven't found it yet but then I really haven't looked. The tools I use are good enough for the problems and contexts I have encountered in over 40 years of software development. Thus I have no reason to hammer my head against the rubber wall of Lisp as well as approximately 900 other languages.

Retric 18y ago
Lisp is the best language for generating HTML, XML, writing compilers, or parsers. PS: Lisp is more a family of languages that share features than it is a specific language.
- chollida1 18y ago
  > , writing compilers, or parsers. I think the OCaml guys and the Haskell guys(Parsec) might take exception to this. See: http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/benefits/parsing.html http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/benefits/parsing.html It's not that CL is bad for writing compilers or parsers (I've written a few parsers using it), its just that blanket statements like "Lisp is the best language for ..." isn't always going to be true.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Some things come down to personal preference, but I don't think OCaml's static type system is more useful than Lisp's approach for parsers / compilers. Granted if your building avionics then type safety is important, but in the more normal case it's just not that useful. Haskell is a pure functional language which is great for maintaining systems but I don't think it's a real benefit when writing them. If you want to write Lisp as a functional Language you can but when it's useful to break that mold you can. PS: There is probably a better language out there for this stuff, but I don't know of it.
  - malkia 18y ago
    Anything coming from Jon Harrop is questionable (ffconsultancy.com)
- lgriffith 18y ago
  Hince my reference to good enough and rubber wall of Lisp. Lisp is not one thing. Its a collection of collections of things capable of being indefinitely morphed by itself. ANSI C is bad enough without those kinds of problems. Incidentally I have written several efficient and effective parsers and compilers in both Pascal and ANSI C. I found them quite good enough. I have a hard time seeing Lisp as little more than a big brother to Forth. I see both of them as wonderful solutions to the wrong problems. At least to probelms I don't have nor want to solve.
Hexstream 18y ago
40 years of software development? I can't help but laugh at your mentioning it as if it really means anything and makes your "arguments" carry more weight.

Retric 18y ago

Lisp is the best language for generating HTML, XML, writing compilers, or parsers. PS: Lisp is more a family of languages that share features than it is a specific language.

chollida1 18y ago
> , writing compilers, or parsers. I think the OCaml guys and the Haskell guys(Parsec) might take exception to this. See: http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/benefits/parsing.html http://www.ffconsultancy.com/ocaml/benefits/parsing.html It's not that CL is bad for writing compilers or parsers (I've written a few parsers using it), its just that blanket statements like "Lisp is the best language for ..." isn't always going to be true.
- Retric 18y ago
  Some things come down to personal preference, but I don't think OCaml's static type system is more useful than Lisp's approach for parsers / compilers. Granted if your building avionics then type safety is important, but in the more normal case it's just not that useful. Haskell is a pure functional language which is great for maintaining systems but I don't think it's a real benefit when writing them. If you want to write Lisp as a functional Language you can but when it's useful to break that mold you can. PS: There is probably a better language out there for this stuff, but I don't know of it.
- malkia 18y ago
  Anything coming from Jon Harrop is questionable (ffconsultancy.com)
lgriffith 18y ago
Hince my reference to good enough and rubber wall of Lisp. Lisp is not one thing. Its a collection of collections of things capable of being indefinitely morphed by itself. ANSI C is bad enough without those kinds of problems. Incidentally I have written several efficient and effective parsers and compilers in both Pascal and ANSI C. I found them quite good enough. I have a hard time seeing Lisp as little more than a big brother to Forth. I see both of them as wonderful solutions to the wrong problems. At least to probelms I don't have nor want to solve.

Hexstream 18y ago

40 years of software development? I can't help but laugh at your mentioning it as if it really means anything and makes your "arguments" carry more weight.