I'm kinda tired and bored (just waiting for my new book from the
bookstore), and felt like typing/talking so please forgive my
possibly, incoherent mumblings.
Lisp in general seems to be famous for overcoming limitations. I
usually read, in books and such, descriptions of lisp in terms of
limitations that it has overcome.
The most problematic `limitation' that I think CL seems to face is one
of efficiency. While CL is anything but inefficient, when I write a
program I still, at times (knowing the time seems to be the trick),
worry at about this efficiency (this may not be true of others of
course).
Aside from these perhaps, `temporary annoyances', lisp seems to lack
an incredible number of built in limitations. I was wondering if
anyone thought that this `lack of limitations' could possibly be why
lisp is not `popular'?
I say this because the more limitations that something has, the more
predictable it seems (at least to me it does). Does anyone think that
Lisp is unpredictable in terms of how successful an outcome can be? It
seems like it could be hard to know how successful a project could be
if you don't know what limitations you already have. I'm really saying
unpredictable because I don't know what other `fears' that a lack of
limitations could impose a person.
I think I sound ridiculous claiming that lisp lacks many limitations.
It just seems, in my _very_ limited experience, that lisp lets me do
stuff that I would have thought to be damn near impossible before I
tried. Plus, I never had a lisp program dump core (actually one time
it asked me if I wanted to dump a core, I said no and it agreed
therefor I don't count it as dumping core).
I dunno...I'm getting really tired (I can tell because of all the
commas and parenthesis - piecemeal thoughts); would love to hear some
opinions, especially if they are stating how ridiculous all this
garbled thought is (perhaps suggestions for an earlier bedtime?), or
if I am completely crazy and lisp really has just as many limitations
as should be expected which is equal in comparison to other languages.
Or that people don't like limitations (maybe they don't and I'm just
tired).
In article <··············@KludgeUnix.com>, Steve Gonedes
<········@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I wrote an article about how (and why) programmers love tools which get in
the way of solving problems. It's called "Poor Tools, Inspired
Craftsmanship?" and is on my web site at
<http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/poor-tools.html>.
>I'm kinda tired and bored (just waiting for my new book from the
>bookstore), and felt like typing/talking so please forgive my
>possibly, incoherent mumblings.
>
>Lisp in general seems to be famous for overcoming limitations. I
>usually read, in books and such, descriptions of lisp in terms of
>limitations that it has overcome.
>
>The most problematic `limitation' that I think CL seems to face is one
>of efficiency. While CL is anything but inefficient, when I write a
>program I still, at times (knowing the time seems to be the trick),
>worry at about this efficiency (this may not be true of others of
>course).
>
>Aside from these perhaps, `temporary annoyances', lisp seems to lack
>an incredible number of built in limitations. I was wondering if
>anyone thought that this `lack of limitations' could possibly be why
>lisp is not `popular'?
>
>I say this because the more limitations that something has, the more
>predictable it seems (at least to me it does). Does anyone think that
>Lisp is unpredictable in terms of how successful an outcome can be? It
>seems like it could be hard to know how successful a project could be
>if you don't know what limitations you already have. I'm really saying
>unpredictable because I don't know what other `fears' that a lack of
>limitations could impose a person.
>
>I think I sound ridiculous claiming that lisp lacks many limitations.
>It just seems, in my _very_ limited experience, that lisp lets me do
>stuff that I would have thought to be damn near impossible before I
>tried. Plus, I never had a lisp program dump core (actually one time
>it asked me if I wanted to dump a core, I said no and it agreed
>therefor I don't count it as dumping core).
>
>I dunno...I'm getting really tired (I can tell because of all the
>commas and parenthesis - piecemeal thoughts); would love to hear some
>opinions, especially if they are stating how ridiculous all this
>garbled thought is (perhaps suggestions for an earlier bedtime?), or
>if I am completely crazy and lisp really has just as many limitations
>as should be expected which is equal in comparison to other languages.
>Or that people don't like limitations (maybe they don't and I'm just
>tired).
--
David B. Lamkins <http://www.teleport.com/~dlamkins/>
* Steve Gonedes <········@worldnet.att.net>
| The most problematic `limitation' that I think CL seems to face is one of
| efficiency. While CL is anything but inefficient, when I write a program
| I still, at times (knowing the time seems to be the trick), worry at
| about this efficiency (this may not be true of others of course).
and even this is no limitation once you learn to operate a profiler. :)
| Aside from these perhaps, `temporary annoyances', lisp seems to lack an
| incredible number of built in limitations. I was wondering if anyone
| thought that this `lack of limitations' could possibly be why lisp is not
| `popular'?
a very insightful observation.
| I say this because the more limitations that something has, the more
| predictable it seems (at least to me it does). Does anyone think that
| Lisp is unpredictable in terms of how successful an outcome can be? It
| seems like it could be hard to know how successful a project could be if
| you don't know what limitations you already have. I'm really saying
| unpredictable because I don't know what other `fears' that a lack of
| limitations could impose a person.
when something is perceived to have far fewer limitations than oneself,
all sorts of emotions fill people: awe, intimidation, inferiority,
insecurity, etc. we frequently see this in movies and the literature and
even TV shows that try to portray the future: that which is massively
smarter than us is supposed to instill emotions that are really _very_
counter-productive, as if we would suddenly become _useless_ to a smarter
race, for instance, nothing more than slaves or foodstuff at worst. I
don't share this view. (matter of fact, I think mankind are slaves to
stupidity, instead. imagine a world where TV commercials didn't work on
people! but I digress.)
most _religions_ are based on something that has far fewer limitations
than ourselves: omnipotence, omnipresence, etc, and yet we're supposed to
_fear_ the gods. I don't get it. it would be ultra-cool to meet a god.
anyway, part of Common Lisp's attraction to me is that what limitations
there are can be overcome, so programming in Common Lisp keeps me on my
toes. I love it. (not that there haven't been a lot of frustrations,
but they have all been resolved after a short while. my frustrations
with C and C++ only only grew worse over time, and didn't resolve.)
I'm sure the old saying "I don't like compilers that are smarter than I
am" is related to the "lack of limitations" idea. again, good thinking!
#:Erik
--
http://www.naggum.no/spam.html is about my spam protection scheme and how
to guarantee that you reach me. in brief: if you reply to a news article
of mine, be sure to include an In-Reply-To or References header with the
message-ID of that message in it. otherwise, you need to read that page.
In article <··············@KludgeUnix.com> Steve Gonedes <········@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> I'm kinda tired and bored (just waiting for my new book from the
> bookstore), and felt like typing/talking so please forgive my
> possibly, incoherent mumblings.
>
> Lisp in general seems to be famous for overcoming limitations. I
> usually read, in books and such, descriptions of lisp in terms of
> limitations that it has overcome.
>
> The most problematic `limitation' that I think CL seems to face is one
> of efficiency. While CL is anything but inefficient, when I write a
> program I still, at times (knowing the time seems to be the trick),
> worry at about this efficiency (this may not be true of others of
> course).
>
> Aside from these perhaps, `temporary annoyances', lisp seems to lack
> an incredible number of built in limitations. I was wondering if
> anyone thought that this `lack of limitations' could possibly be why
> lisp is not `popular'?
>
Interesting theory.
I can tell you from labored first hand experience with complex C++ programs
that the existence of these limitations is definitely giving, at least some
of the C++ people that I know of, cause for concern. For example, most of
these C++ programs have *severe* memory leak problems. The "Purify" theory
does not seem to be working for some reason. Most of these C++ programs
have *severe* over complicated contrivances to replace what would be simpler
using dynamic typing. Most of these C++ programs have *severe* bog down in
development time due to static complier/analyzer slowness and apparent
uncontrollable include file dependency chains.
In my personal opinion, the C++ community is becoming more and more in
trouble and the Lisp community has at least one good remedy. In my personal
opinion, with modern technology and costs, the efficiency issue is no longer
an excuse to not use Lisp. Of course, it is not my opinion that counts.
However, I can tell you that there is an impending need developing that may
pave the way for a natural rediscovery of Lisp.
In the mean time I prefer to see this newsgroup helping use and improve Lisp
so that it exists in a modern accommodating form when and if it is
rediscovered. Struggling with the popularity issue seems to result in a
dead end.
--
William P. Vrotney - ·······@netcom.com