In article <················@arolla.idiap.ch> ···@idiap.ch writes:
In article <·····@castle.ed.ac.uk> ····@castle.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
Nonetheless, I think ML is a good langauge. I happen to prefer
Lisp, but I'm perfectly happy for other people to prefer ML.
I think there's more than one good kind of language, and I
think it's entriely reasonable for different people to prefer
different kinds.
Why does it have to be "either...or"?
It doesn't. A combination language might be another good kind.
A language that combines a
static type checker with Milner-style polymorphism (SML), dynamic
typing (Lisp), pattern matching (SML), incremental interactive
development (Lisp and SML), late linking (Lisp), ...
I find all these features convenient, and I don't see why I shouldn't
have them all.
Nor do I, except that no one has yet combined them. However,
hostility to Lisp is such that I'm not sure anyone will want
to provide all of the Lisp features that I value (such as the
syntax) unless it's someone in the Lisp community.
Eulisp seems a lot cleaner than previous Lisps, but I think it
addresses none of the important issues that I mentioned above any
better than Lisp did.
People disagree about which issues are most important, just as
they disagree about which kinds of languages are best.
-- jeff