4 ms·

Nobody is writing satellite code in CLOS, though. Ahem: http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html Also Even C++ would be a

Nobody is writing satellite code in CLOS, though. Ahem: http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html Also Even C++ would be a bit more safer depending on what flavor of CLOS you are using. Assuming you meant CL rather than CLOS, I disagree with intensity. Considering CL is actually memory safe, and has the condition system, this this is the weird statement. CL was used for building a lot of big and expensive software, and still is in certain niches. I say actual reality trumps HN PL theorizing. True, there are challenges, but somehow actual humans have managed to get a lot of really good work done with this language.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
This is all still quite old: > At the time it was more or less taken for granted that AI work was done in Lisp. C++ barely existed. Perl was brand new. Java was years away. Spacecraft were mostly programmed in assembler, or, if you were really being radical, Ada. Then of course there was resistance: > Now, you might expect that with a track record like that, with one technological success after another, that NASA would be rushing to embrace Lisp. And you would, of course, be wrong. ... Someone (I don't know who) interrupted him and asked if he could change only one thing to make things better what would it be. His answer was: get rid of Lisp [3]. And then... > The demise of Lisp at JPL is a tragedy. The language is particularly well suited for the kind of software development that is often done here: one-of-a-kind, highly dynamic applications that must be developed on extremely tight budgets and schedules. The efficacy of the language in that kind of environment is amply documented by a long record of unmatched technical achievements. Lispers always wonder what could have been, what should be, but then there is what is. Don't get me wrong, I like Lisp, I've used it, I've never used CLOS for anything big but it is definitely a relevant language in the study of PL. But the sad truth is that...LISP is kind of weird unapproachable to most people: if they want semantic feedback (type checking), then there are other choices (Java, C++), if they want a dynamic language with a more well defined semantics and syntax, there are better options (Python).

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

This is all still quite old: > At the time it was more or less taken for granted that AI work was done in Lisp. C++ barely existed. Perl was brand new. Java was years away. Spacecraft were mostly programmed in assembler, or, if you were really being radical, Ada. Then of course there was resistance: > Now, you might expect that with a track record like that, with one technological success after another, that NASA would be rushing to embrace Lisp. And you would, of course, be wrong. ... Someone (I don't know who) interrupted him and asked if he could change only one thing to make things better what would it be. His answer was: get rid of Lisp [3]. And then... > The demise of Lisp at JPL is a tragedy. The language is particularly well suited for the kind of software development that is often done here: one-of-a-kind, highly dynamic applications that must be developed on extremely tight budgets and schedules. The efficacy of the language in that kind of environment is amply documented by a long record of unmatched technical achievements. Lispers always wonder what could have been, what should be, but then there is what is. Don't get me wrong, I like Lisp, I've used it, I've never used CLOS for anything big but it is definitely a relevant language in the study of PL. But the sad truth is that...LISP is kind of weird unapproachable to most people: if they want semantic feedback (type checking), then there are other choices (Java, C++), if they want a dynamic language with a more well defined semantics and syntax, there are better options (Python).