Fred Gilham <······@japonica.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> Graham gives a couple candidates that haven't proved convincing
> (list-processing, symbolic computing, dynamic language) but doesn't
> mention `interactive programming' which I think is where Lisp makes a
> very powerful contribution. While it's not specific to Lisp, there
> are few other programming environments that retain it while also
> achieving high performance..
Well, I'd be careful with "interactive", as many people might associate
this with being interpreted and slow, which is an old myth about Lisp.
I'd rather use "reflective" and "adaptable". Relatively few commercially
used languages - i.e. not just research projects - achive what's possible
for Lisp in that area.
-- Marc Wachowitz <··@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>
Marc Wachowitz wrote:
> Fred Gilham <······@japonica.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> > Graham gives a couple candidates that haven't proved convincing
> > (list-processing, symbolic computing, dynamic language) but doesn't
> > mention `interactive programming' which I think is where Lisp makes
> a
> > very powerful contribution. While it's not specific to Lisp, there
> > are few other programming environments that retain it while also
> > achieving high performance..
>
> Well, I'd be careful with "interactive", as many people might
> associate
> this with being interpreted and slow, which is an old myth about Lisp.
Quite possibly, but I tend to think it's the single largest
advantagelisp has over languages like C/C++/Java.
>
>
> I'd rather use "reflective" and "adaptable". Relatively few
> commercially
> used languages - i.e. not just research projects - achive what's
> possible
> for Lisp in that area.
Yes, but a lot of people aren't going to know what that means,
and fewer yet are going to be concerned about it.
dave