2 ms·
I really think that when a language designer is contemplating removing features, they should be mindful of the inevitability of people greenspunning those featu
by raganwald 17y ago
I really think that when a language designer is contemplating removing features, they should be mindful of the inevitability of people greenspunning those features right back in. There's a lot of value in making a language simpler and more elegant, and if the language gives you great tools for building stuff in people might surprise you by designing better implementations than what you intended.
But still, it's inevitable that anything remotely lisp-like will get sucked into Lisp's black hole.
- aerique 17y agoCan you explain your last sentence? I don't understand it.
- raganwald 17y agoThe Black Hole Theory of Design: http://blogs.sun.com/jag/entry/the_black_hole_theory_of http://blogs.sun.com/jag/entry/the_black_hole_theory_of Another way to put it is that Lisp might be a local maximum: It may not be the globally optimum language for a particular problem, but once you approach Lisp you find that improving your language requires either becoming more Lisp-like or making a huge leap away from Lisp (C, ML, Haskell, Smalltalk, Erlang, &c.)