On 6 nov, 11:38, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> ... at least on some community sites:
>
> http://www.langpop.com/
>
> ;-)
from those graphs you can clearly see the IT world at large is still
heavily geared towards low-level performant imperative languages with
few exceptions.
It's truly amusing to see Lisp, Smalltalk, Haskell and OCaml behind
shell or assembly in programmer's preferences. OTOH, it could be just
a sign of times: python and ruby are heavily influenced by both lisp
and smalltalk and indeed are fairly popular, despite being watered-
down clones...
On Nov 6, 9:52 am, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 nov, 11:38, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
>
> > ... at least on some community sites:
>
> >http://www.langpop.com/
>
> > ;-)
>
> from those graphs you can clearly see the IT world at large is still
> heavily geared towards low-level performant imperative languages with
> few exceptions.
>
> It's truly amusing to see Lisp, Smalltalk, Haskell and OCaml behind
> shell or assembly in programmer's preferences. OTOH, it could be just
> a sign of times: python and ruby are heavily influenced by both lisp
> and smalltalk and indeed are fairly popular, despite being watered-
> down clones...
Nothing new here. It takes a Real Programmer to drink his Scotch
without water. Oh, wait.. different subject entirely :)
Rainer Joswig wrote:
> .... at least on some community sites:
>
> http://www.langpop.com/
>
> ;-)
From this, lisp is talked about far more often than it is used.
Except, of course, on c.l.lisp, where lisp is used more often and the
talk tends to focus on gravitationally challenged amphibians, language
design theory with a special focus on syntax, Emacs, Scheme, etc.