5 ms·
> , 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-
by 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 agoSome 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 agoAnything coming from Jon Harrop is questionable (ffconsultancy.com)