······@cs.brown.edu (David Reiss) wrote in message news:<············@saturn.services.brown.edu>...
> Shinji Ikari <······@swirve.com> wrote:
> > A good C++ programmer with good tools can be just as productive as a
> > good Lisp programmer. Measurements to the contrary are the result of
> > the fact that comparative tests between the two languages usually use
> > good Lisp programmers vs mediocre C++ programmers.
>
> One point you don't consider is the amount of time and effort it takes a
> person with no knowledge in either of those languages to become a "good"
> programmer in them. C++ seems to have a lot of features that make it
> much harder to learn than Lisp: when to use pointers vs. references,
> when to alloccate on the stack vs. the heap, how to use templates, how
> to use the syntax for overloading operators, etc. In Lisp, on the other
> hand, everything is a reference, the compiler manages all allocation and
> deallocation, and the syntax is much simpler. I suspect that it would
> take much more effort to reach a certain level of productivity in C++
> than in Lisp.
I take your point. Lisp *is* easier to learn quickly. But I would
say that it still takes many years to become a good Lisp programmer.
>
> --David
······@swirve.com (Shinji Ikari) writes:
> I take your point. Lisp *is* easier to learn quickly. But I would
> say that it still takes many years to become a good Lisp programmer.
It takes many years to become a _programmer_, and many _more_ years to
become a _good_ one. Who could possibly think otherwise? The "Java
in 21 days" crowd?
Give me a break.
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>