I think this groups sees enough pointless bickering without some airheaded
and totally transparent attempt to "swat the hornet's nest"
I would be quite surprised if Erik takes your bait.
Coby
Xah <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ······················@xahlee.org...
> this message is for doctor Naggum.
>
> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
>
> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL. is that because the
advanced
> theory of economy that superior products will never be as popular as
> inferior products? how does this theory apply to Haskell/Dylan/CL? due to
my
> limited knowledge, i can not fathom but guess that it's because CL has the
> power of massive legacy. as can be seen in C or unix, that prowess of
legacy
> is not to be ignored. however, the key question to me is whether CL has
> technical clout over Haskell or Dylan. could you please exercise your
expert
> opinion?
>
> thanks.
>
> ps none comp.lang.lisp dweller needs not reply.
>
> Xah
> ···@xahlee.org
> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
>
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Coby Beck would say:
>Xah <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message ······················@xahlee.org...
>> this message is for doctor Naggum.
>>
>> why Haskell or Dylan hasn't replaced CL yet?
>
>I think this groups sees enough pointless bickering without some
>airheaded and totally transparent attempt to "swat the hornet's
>nest"
>
>I would be quite surprised if Erik takes your bait.
#erik would be pretty stupid to do so; the .signature below is a
useful retort.
Dylan has the merit of having some of the same designers behind it
that were behind CL, and in having the clean slate that CL didn't
have. Unfortunately, that lack of "legacy" means that there was no
code to port to it.
And I'm surprised that Haskell is being promoted; the "truly, and
almost purely, functional" language that has actually grown to have
multiple implementations and to have potent development tools seems
instead to be ML. OCAML does look rather interesting, and there are
actually some *somewhat* meaningful applications written in it.
But arguing over it leads to "dung fights," and the given is that in
such battles, everyone involves winds up smelling really bad.
--
"Bawden is misinformed. Common Lisp has no philosophy. We are held
together only by a shared disgust for all the alternatives."
-- Scott Fahlman, explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is....
········@hex.net - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>