When I posted the former post why not enough Lisp libraries, I did't
realize there would be some many reponses. I roughly go through all of
them and found something useful. But after some thought, I think that
not a single language that is powerful or not. It is the implementation
of this language, or the development platform that really counts during
software development cycle.
On 1 Mar 2005 11:06:52 -0800, <·········@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When I posted the former post why not enough Lisp libraries, I did't
> realize there would be some many reponses. I roughly go through all of
> them and found something useful. But after some thought, I think that
> not a single language that is powerful or not. It is the implementation
> of this language, or the development platform that really counts during
> software development cycle.
You might want to listen to P Grahams lecture on ~'What makes a good
hacker'. It is the hacker that counts, and giving that hacker
flexible tools is the best move. "A Programmable Programming
Language" is such a tool.
--
Everyman has three hearts;
one to show the world, one to show friends, and one only he knows.
lisplover wrote:
> When I posted the former post why not enough Lisp libraries, I did't
> realize there would be some many reponses. I roughly go through all
of
> them and found something useful. But after some thought, I think that
> not a single language that is powerful or not. It is the
implementation
> of this language, or the development platform that really counts
during
> software development cycle.
But some languages could be implemented well - like Lisp, Forth, ML,
Java. Some are very bloated or far from hardware, and quality of the
implementation will
never be good enough - as for C++, Haskell, PHP, Smalltalk.