Lisp vs. Common Lisp
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: 2010 world cup Spain jerseys,paypal payment and free shipping
Next: An instructive example of trace-function and some example of debugging
From: Giovanni Gigante on 13 Jun 2010 06:23 > Programming languages are all small, on the same order of magnitude. Well, yes, if one takes a look at the whole java for example, suddenly CL appears of subatomic size. But I still think that the idea I was reporting has some truth, in the sense that, apparently, CL was never designed with the "small and elegant" mindset (while scheme appears to be). Am I wrong? Maybe there is an universal law anyway, than any succesful "small and elegant" project inevitably tends to become "feature rich" in the course of time, until it collapses, and the cycle restarts. g
From: Tamas K Papp on 13 Jun 2010 06:57 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:23:07 +0200, Giovanni Gigante wrote: >> Programming languages are all small, on the same order of magnitude. > > > Well, yes, if one takes a look at the whole java for example, suddenly > CL appears of subatomic size. > But I still think that the idea I was reporting has some truth, in the > sense that, apparently, CL was never designed with the "small and > elegant" mindset (while scheme appears to be). Am I wrong? CL appears to have been designed to fit together nicely. "Smallness" is a red herring. People who design "small" languages try to eliminate features they consider "redundant", and keep only "orthogonal" ones. The problem with this approach is that in practice, the criteria for redundancy is usually mathematical, not practical. Creating good library functions is a slow, evolutionary process, not an exercise in mathematics. > Maybe there is an universal law anyway, than any succesful "small and > elegant" project inevitably tends to become "feature rich" in the course > of time, until it collapses, and the cycle restarts. I think that small and (ostensibly) elegant languages either disappear, or get non-standard extensions, which may be unified at some point into a single standard one if the particular language community is lucky. If not, then semi-standard libraries will coexist for a long time. I enjoyed reading Patterns of Software by Richard P. Gabriel on this topic. Tamas
From: Pascal Costanza on 13 Jun 2010 09:19 On 13/06/2010 12:23, Giovanni Gigante wrote: > >> Programming languages are all small, on the same order of magnitude. > > > Well, yes, if one takes a look at the whole java for example, suddenly > CL appears of subatomic size. > But I still think that the idea I was reporting has some truth, in the > sense that, apparently, CL was never designed with the "small and > elegant" mindset (while scheme appears to be). > Am I wrong? The original goals for creating Common Lisp are listed here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/ai-repository/ai/html/cltl/clm/node6.html#SECTION00510000000000000000 The original goals for creating Scheme are listed here: http://repository.readscheme.org/ftp/papers/ai-lab-pubs/AIM-349.pdf and here: http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/r3rs_1.html#SEC1 > Maybe there is an universal law anyway, than any succesful "small and > elegant" project inevitably tends to become "feature rich" in the course > of time, until it collapses, and the cycle restarts. The discipline of computer science in its current form is about 50-60 years old. That's far too early to claim any kind of universality of laws in that realm. I think we have to wait a couple of centuries for making any final judgments... Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Giovanni Gigante on 13 Jun 2010 11:03 > I think we have to wait a couple of centuries for > making any final judgments... Interestingly, Lisp programmers seem to like such long views [1]. (Like diamonds, Lisp is forever, and difficult to sell too). By the way, if Moore's law holds, in such a period of time we'll have more bits than atoms in the universe, in which case "final judgement" will perhaps take a more literal sense. After all, the farsighted designers of Perl (whose wisdom is evident to all) like to title their documents "apocalypses". [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html
From: Pascal Costanza on 13 Jun 2010 11:44
On 13/06/2010 17:03, Giovanni Gigante wrote: > >> I think we have to wait a couple of centuries for making any final >> judgments... > > > Interestingly, Lisp programmers seem to like such long views [1]. > (Like diamonds, Lisp is forever, and difficult to sell too). Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that we're all just guessing... ;) Pascal > By the way, if Moore's law holds, in such a period of time we'll have > more bits than atoms in the universe, in which case "final judgement" > will perhaps take a more literal sense. After all, the farsighted > designers of Perl (whose wisdom is evident to all) like to title their > documents "apocalypses". > > > [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/ |