7 ms·
Common Lisp, C and C++ did not contribute to the field in the enormous way that Scheme, Haskell and Smalltalk did. They're sheeple languages (made with the work
by innguest 12y ago
Common Lisp, C and C++ did not contribute to the field in the enormous way that Scheme, Haskell and Smalltalk did. They're sheeple languages (made with the worker in mind) to control employees, and not languages to empower and liberate the programmer (like Forth, another great example of an experimental language by Chuck Moore).
My point stands.
- lispm 12y ago> They're sheeple languages (made with the worker in mind) to control employees, Total nonsense. > and not languages to empower and liberate the programmer Also nonsense.
- innguest 12y agoIf you want to refute you will have to do better than just show up; you could start by explaining why do we have so many shops using Java and .Net and now Rails (which makes it possible for Ruby programmers to be fungible for managers) and so few using Scheme and Smalltalk etc. Ask your manager why you can't switch to a better language. The answer is it's harder to find talent for it. Bingo.
- sedachv 12y ago> Ask your manager why you can't switch to a better language. The answer is it's harder to find talent for it. That's a really good point. IDK if I would say that about Scheme though. There are a lot more people around that know Scheme than know Common Lisp. I learned to program Lisp starting with Scheme; going back to Scheme from Common Lisp feels really disempowering.