3 ms·
Well you should just use Common Lisp if you want an object system like Common Lisp's. It comes without all the baggage and duct tape of Perl.
by SimHacker 13y ago
Well you should just use Common Lisp if you want an object system like Common Lisp's. It comes without all the baggage and duct tape of Perl.
- berntb 13y agoI could be happy using either just a nice Lisp or Perl the rest of my life. (Perl do look more likely, since e.g. the last time I checked the Lisps I didn't even find good Unicode support, etc.) But you didn't expect a serious answer. You've written five(!) troll comments in this discussion -- as of now, total comments are 28. The last four trolls in 12 minutes. In short: You're a complete drag on HN signal-to-noise and give pathetic waste-of-air language war trolls a bad name. (All complex language environments have duct tape and baggage. And... ah, why feed the stinking trolls?)