I like burning straw men, so here I go.
I've gotten the impression from people (not just trolls on cll) that
because LISP dates back to the late 1950's, it is not a Modern(tm)
language. As I'm preaching to the choir, I think this is trivial to
disprove.
The ANSI standard came out in 1994 (IIRC). That's not so long ago in
the grand scheme of things. When did C get out of ANSI? Wasn't it
about 1990? C is still very popular it seems. Some people still
write operating systems in it. Can you imagine?
Java (for which the only standard comes from Sun) didn't start to get
popular until around 1997. So it existed prior to that in some form.
That is not such an age gap that Java can be Modern but Common Lisp
can't.
How many computer languages have come out of ANSI since 1994 that have
a user base as large as Common Lisp? I don't know the answer to
that. I expect it isn't anything that doesn't fit in a fixnum.
Common Lisp also supports Modern(tm) language features like OOP and
whatever the heck AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming) is. Lisp also
supports more built in data types than any other language I know.
What other people know is irrelevant. I learned in an intro to
Philosophy course that all I really "know" about the universe is that
which I perceive through my senses. So I could be a materialist and
just assume the universe exists, or I can be a solipsist. Which one
of those two would fit my ego better?
My conclusion is that not only is Common Lisp a modern language in
spite of some historical names, it is probably the most modern of all
the languages currently available.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Is Common Lisp a Modern Language?
Date:
Message-ID: <4ekpgzbfu.fsf@franz.com>
···@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> >Common Lisp also supports Modern(tm) language features like OOP and
>
> LISP does not just "also support" OOP. According to Dr. Alan
> Kay, who coined the term "OOP", LISP is /the one language/, in
> which OOP can be done, if one is not using Smalltalk. Alan Kay
> wrote about OOP in 2003:
>
> "It can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are
> possibly other systems in which this is possible, but I'm
> not aware of them."
>
> http://www.purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/doc_kay_oop_en
>
> On the other hand, because he coined OOP in 1966, it might not
> be considerd that "modern". But you do not have to mention
> this, and let your audience believe that OOP is "modern" if
> that supports your reasoning.
>
> (Because Dr. Kay used "LISP", I - refering to this - also have
> used that uppercase spelling.
From the above reference, it is, because he got his ideas for
the original Smalltalk precisely from the ancient LISP language
concepts.
> I am not sure, whether he refers
> to CLOS in Lisp, or really to LISP, like, e.g., LISP 1.5 or so.
> If not using CLOS, OOP might possibly be done in LISP
> using the basic dynamic features of the language.)
Not there, where he is reviewing historical data. However, he is
certainly aware of CLOS, as well as the MOP, as in his 1997 OOPSLA
keynote talk he said "The Art of the Metaobject Protocol is the
best book written in computing in ten years". See:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/mark.guzdial/squeak/oopsla.html
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
David Steuber wrote:
> I've gotten the impression from people (not just trolls on cll) that
> because LISP dates back to the late 1950's, it is not a Modern(tm)
> language. As I'm preaching to the choir, I think this is trivial to
> disprove.
The Chevrolet Corvette dates back to the 1950s. Is it a modern car?
Lisp has evolved over the years, and it continues to evolve. ANSI
standardization should not be construed as a final destination.
Also, what barmar said.
-Len
I just stumbled across some old email that mentioned a lisp-standards
mailing list that was archived at Rochester. People might be
interested in looking at these discussions.
The location is
ftp://ftp.cs.rochester.edu/pub/archives/lisp-standards/
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Thou shalt not convince stupid people to try cordless bungee jumping....
Thou shalt not substitute Semtex when all the Playdough's gone....
Thou shalt not bob for hand grenades....
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Is Common Lisp a Modern Language?
Date:
Message-ID: <uu0ybixb1.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
We still know how the word "CONS" was originally pronounced.
So it must be a modern language.
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> We still know how the word "CONS" was originally pronounced.
> So it must be a modern language.
:-)
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.
In article <··············@david-steuber.com>,
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> I like burning straw men, so here I go.
>
> I've gotten the impression from people (not just trolls on cll) that
> because LISP dates back to the late 1950's, it is not a Modern(tm)
> language. As I'm preaching to the choir, I think this is trivial to
> disprove.
It really depends on what you mean by "modern". A tree may be 100 years
old, but every year it grows new branches and leaves, so it's not really
the same old tree.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> I've gotten the impression from people (not just trolls on cll) that
> because LISP dates back to the late 1950's, it is not a Modern(tm)
> language. As I'm preaching to the choir, I think this is trivial to
Another way of looking at this is that other languages are not modern
because they are converging to Lisp.
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (Google for info on each):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it> writes:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
> > I've gotten the impression from people (not just trolls on cll) that
> > because LISP dates back to the late 1950's, it is not a Modern(tm)
> > language. As I'm preaching to the choir, I think this is trivial to
>
> Another way of looking at this is that other languages are not modern
> because they are converging to Lisp.
My humble experience and less than humble opinion make me believe that
the convergence is less than asymptotic.
--
I wouldn't mind the rat race so much if it wasn't for all the damn cats.