Who were the opponents of Lisp?
in [Lisp]
|
From: Francogrex on 26 Mar 2010 16:30 On Mar 26, 9:20 pm, His kennyness <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > More recently, Steele and Norvig. Show good evidence to back up your claim.
From: David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 26 Mar 2010 21:50 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:15:42 +0100, Kazimir Majorinc <email(a)false.false> wrote: > Informally, many people criticize Lisp. Some best > programmers I know easily dismissed it because > "they do not like parentheses." But who of programming > celebrities or theoreticians were enemies of Lisp? > Are there any influential anti-Lisp book or article, > scientific or not? The most prominent anti-Lisp artical would be "Worse is better" but that is not so much an anti-lisp artical as a explonation of why Unix and C became dominate in the marketplace over Lisp running on lisp mechines.
From: D Herring on 27 Mar 2010 12:16 On 03/27/2010 07:22 AM, His kennyness wrote: > Knuth said any idiot can implement a linked list so there is no need for > Lisp. Look it up. When it comes to algorithms and other low-level details, Knuth knows where its at. After looking at TeX and other programs he wrote, does anyone care what he says about style or other large-scale issues? - Daniel
From: His kennyness on 27 Mar 2010 13:06 D Herring wrote: > On 03/27/2010 07:22 AM, His kennyness wrote: > >> Knuth said any idiot can implement a linked list so there is no need for >> Lisp. Look it up. > > When it comes to algorithms and other low-level details, Knuth knows > where its at. Which suggesrs those skills have nothing to do with understanding what makes languages more or less powerful. > After looking at TeX and other programs he wrote, does > anyone care what he says about style or other large-scale issues? It took him ten years just to lay out type, TeX is notoriously hard to mark up, and there is no wysiwyg GUI. Hard to be impressed. His other contribution was literate programming, one of the worst and least successful programming ideas ever but a natural result of his rejection of powerful languages. They guy writes in assembler, no wonder he needs something he can read. kt
From: Tim Bradshaw on 27 Mar 2010 13:41
On 2010-03-27 17:06:13 +0000, His kennyness said: > It took him ten years just to lay out type To be fair, I think he basically had to discover how typography works, including mathematical typography, invent algorithms that could do a decent job of it, implement them and (not least) design a typeface (OK, a horrible typeface, but I think he was constrained by the typeface his publisher had already used) and write a program in which to implement that design. That's actually pretty good going for ten years. > TeX is notoriously hard to mark up, TeX is indeed a horrible language > and there is no wysiwyg GUI. People who can type generally don't want such. Though TeX is horrible, it is still a pretty good way of creating printed maths - certainly far better than anything else I've seen. (None of this should be taken as implying I think Knuth has anything interesting to say about programming languages: I don't.) |