In article <·················@xahlee.org>, Xah <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
> i don't have the lisp defect and can enunciate those phases with clarity.
Concepts like "MOP" (see below) are mostly general computer science
concepts. If you don't know these, you might be careful claiming that
"surely" something is better.
> i sure hope you give at least some lip service to the terms you speak. can
> you explain MOP?
"Meta Object Protocol". Read the works from Gregor Kiczales (and others).
It means the the object system in this (case CLOS) is opened up,
so that you can query, manipulate, extend, modify its behaviour.
There is a book ("The Art of the Metaobject Protocol"), which
is seen as a very important contribution to computer science
(for example by Alan Kay, whose name should be familiar to you).
The MOP for example is one of the reason why CLOS is uptodate.
Its mechanism allows to adapt to changes, whithout
the need to invent a new programming language every
other week.
> i searched the web and found http://www.nichimen.com/, but
> i couldn't find any mention of lisp.
But you could see the information about Mirai? See the graphics
created with it? Sony, Nintendo and many other companies
are using it to create graphics for their games
(Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy, Zelda, ...).
Mirai is mostly written in Common Lisp. To be more
specific, it is Allegro Common Lisp from Franz.
That you can write such a high-end 3d application in Lisp
is a sign, that it has **real** practical use - if never seen
anything comparably mindblowing written in, say, Haskell.
> C++ will probably beat every point in
> comparison of those aspects.
C++ has neither a MOP nor dynamic objects. C++ has not the
flexibility of Lisp, etc.
> i understand that you probably think that CL is the best language on earth,
I didn't say that.
CL is the best language on earth for certain purposes.
For others it is not.
> but i wish any such proponent would give a list of languages where they are
> an expert as a context of their claim.
How about you? You were making a claim in the first place.
> surely no one here would claim that
> CL is better than _literally_ _all_ languages? More to the point, what
> languages you think are better or has the potential to be better than CL?
For certain applications you might look at Haskell, Dylan,
Smalltalk, C++, Objective C, Prolog, ...
Or not.
> ends up worse than the (possibly) legacy ridden CL?
"Legacy ridden" means that I can run fifteen year old software
in Common Lisp without changes, if you reformulate it positively.
Common Lisp is not your language if you want to
be forced to rewrite your software every other
year. Still a lot of software written in Lisp is on the leading
edge of (programming language) research.
> i was hoping someone with severe lisp paroxysm such as Doctor Naggum to
> irradiate my nescience, but i'm willing to learn from other paladins of
> lambda legacy and diehards.
What is the purpose of your question? From your sentences I read
that your are not really knowing what you are talking about
(in this case, sorry) and that you are trying to compare apples with oranges
and that you are making bold claims without knowing Common Lisp
or its uses.
In your case, why not formulate the question more neutral and
ask what the current uses of Common Lisp are and why
it is being used? And then make up your mind for yourself?
Rainer Joswig, ISION Internet AG, Harburger Schlossstrasse 1,
21079 Hamburg, Germany, Tel: +49 40 77175 226
Email: ·············@ision.de , WWW: http://www.ision.de/
rainer,
don't drivel all over the place. try to read my previous two posts with
care. i'm a person of methodology and meticulousness. when you write, try to
make a diamond a word. don't ruin a fine troll with banal noise.
as to Haskell/Dylan vs CL, i do like to know the opinions on them from CL
devotee. i have already learned your opinion partially. i welcome more.
i wrote
> but i wish any such proponent would give a list of languages where they are
> an expert as a context of their claim.
rainer wrote
> How about you? You were making a claim in the first place.
sure, i'd be happy to give my opinions on languages if you or other insist.
i don't think anyone here is that interested. i'm not a master of many
languages. btw, i did not claim that Haskell or Dylan is superior to CL.
read with perceptiveness.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes on Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800:
> i mean, surely they are both superior than CL.
[with "they" refering to Haskell and Dylan]
Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes on Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:20:17 -0800:
> btw, i did not claim that Haskell or Dylan is superior to CL.
You really need to improve your memory.
Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.
Stig Hemmer <····@gnoll.pvv.ntnu.no> writes:
> Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes on Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:18:33 -0800:
> > i mean, surely they are both superior than CL.
> [with "they" refering to Haskell and Dylan]
>
> Xah <···@xahlee.org> writes on Sun, 20 Feb 2000 07:20:17 -0800:
> > btw, i did not claim that Haskell or Dylan is superior to CL.
>
> You really need to improve your memory.
He also needs to concentrate _less_ on using [cruel and] unusual
words, and _more_ on forming complete, parseable and unambiguous
sentences.
BTW: On his web site, he claims to be an expert Mathematica
programmer. Mathematica is just an application[1], so isn't this like
claiming to be a Microsoft Word Wizard?
Footnotes:
[1] Yeah, I know...
--
Raymond Wiker, Orion Systems AS
+47 370 61150