4 ms·

I mean, a really solid understanding of substitution is probably one of the major contributions of lambda calculus. For what's effectively an implementation to

by nmrm 12y ago

I mean, a really solid understanding of substitution is probably one of the major contributions of lambda calculus. For what's effectively an implementation to get that wrong is pretty pathological. And also, there's no reason to defend it. It's a bug. Period. Yet here we are. And there's a whole hell of a lot more in the world than software development... To the extent that lisp captures any of these other foundational ideas/theories/techniques, type theory does better (which is what I was pre-empting with my original reference, not the role of type systems in the world of practical software development).

lispm 12y ago
> Stepping back to the original point, there are other significantly important/powerful ideas in the world, and lisp users are somewhat over-the-top in their significance-to-hype ratio. Lisp is not a version of lambda calculus. It's a programming language. Macro programming in Lisp works fine in many cases. > type theory does better ... not the role of type systems in the world of practical software development). Lisp is about practical software development.
- nmrm 12y ago
  Right, okay, so lisp is primarily a programming language for practical software development. That's really my whole point. I'd argue that there are lots of other settings with ideas a powerful or more powerful than whatever it is each individual evangelist feels someone should get out a lisp. Yet none of these other things have enlightened evangelists pushing the product. That's all I'm saying.