On 2008-09-06 11:46:32 +0100, gavino <·········@gmail.com> said:
> I really don't
>
> and for some odd reason I have this fascination with forth lisp
> smalltalk io haskell
>
> aggghhh!!
Isn't the answer *precisely* in your asking the question?
Lisp is not used by "people who don't get it".
Not because those that do are any smarter or born geniuses,
but surely *because* they decided to put in *the effort* to
learn and see "beyond the parens", an effort that took me
many, many years of "not getting it".
And even if Commonn Lisp "smells funny", the larger Lisp
community (Schemne, newLisp, Clojure, Nu, Qi) seems to be
too significant in number to qualify for "not being used".
To use an analogy (sorry Kenny:) it's a bit like saying that
grammar is useless because nobody uses it. Sure, but actual
human languages are! Which do embody a grammar.
Lisp is the grammar of computer science. But you can stick
to English if you prefer :-)
--
JFB
The blub analogy maybe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blub
or just plain aesthetics?
I'm sure there are lots of possible reasons, even if they only have a
small impact each.
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: if lisp can add any feature, then why doesn't it get used? I don't get it..
Date:
Message-ID: <48c33c12$0$29527$607ed4bc@cv.net>
gavino wrote:
> I really don't
>
> and for some odd reason I have this fascination with forth lisp
> smalltalk io haskell
>
> aggghhh!!
At ECLM 2008 I laughed at the 95 out of 96 in the audience who still do
not use Cells.
Many of them were using CL when I was still banging my head against C.
Steven Parent of Adobe tried to tell Google about his Cells (Adam), but
also explained that he used C++ because he had to ship real
applications. And earlier said nothing was better for generic programming.
So I would not worry about it.
hth, kzo
---
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com
On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> gavino wrote:
> > I really don't
>
> > and for some odd reason I have this fascination with forth lisp
> > smalltalk io haskell
>
> > aggghhh!!
>
> At ECLM 2008 I laughed at the 95 out of 96 in the audience who still do
> not use Cells.
>
> Many of them were using CL when I was still banging my head against C.
>
> Steven Parent of Adobe tried to tell Google about his Cells (Adam), but
> also explained that he used C++ because he had to ship real
> applications. And earlier said nothing was better for generic programming.
>
> So I would not worry about it.
>
> hth, kzo
>
> ---http://www.theoryyalgebra.com
what are cells?
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: if lisp can add any feature, then why doesn't it get used? I don't get it..
Date:
Message-ID: <48c88db0$0$26972$607ed4bc@cv.net>
gavino wrote:
> On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, Kenny <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>gavino wrote:
>>
>>>I really don't
>>
>>>and for some odd reason I have this fascination with forth lisp
>>>smalltalk io haskell
>>
>>>aggghhh!!
>>
>>At ECLM 2008 I laughed at the 95 out of 96 in the audience who still do
>>not use Cells.
>>
>>Many of them were using CL when I was still banging my head against C.
>>
>>Steven Parent of Adobe tried to tell Google about his Cells (Adam), but
>>also explained that he used C++ because he had to ship real
>>applications. And earlier said nothing was better for generic programming.
>>
>>So I would not worry about it.
>>
>>hth, kzo
>>
>>---http://www.theoryyalgebra.com
>
>
> what are cells?
Try not to be so obvious, you might fool one person one time.
hth, kt
From: Andrew Reilly
Subject: Re: if lisp can add any feature, then why doesn't it get used? I don't get it..
Date:
Message-ID: <6igqgnFpoljjU1@mid.individual.net>
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:46:32 -0700, gavino wrote:
> I really don't
No, you just haven't done enough study. Your question is incorrect
(contains an incorrect premise.) I know of no "feature" or idea in
programming languages that does not exist as a loadable facility for one
variety of lisp or another. Have a closer look at PLT scheme's library,
just as an example. Essentially everything is there. I'm less familiar
with Common Lisp, but I'm sure that every known and even most
experimental programming paradigms are available or have been tried.
There are also several that don't exist in other languages, of course.
That most of them aren't used in most code, or at least the code that
you've been looking at, might be more of an indication of their utility,
at least in comparison to all of the other facilities available... There
are also issues of basic compatability between some of the paradigms and
the bulk of the existing libraries that do useful stuff. That probably
creates significant drag against general adoption.
> and for some odd reason I have this fascination with forth lisp
> smalltalk io haskell
Sticking just within the PLT-scheme world, you might want to have a look
at staapl, swindle, lazy-scheme, typed-scheme, fr-time, and there was a
smalltalk-like object system posted on the mailing list less than a year
ago that was no more than a few hundred lines of code -- can't remember
the name, sorry. Don't know about io.
If you want to play around with programming language paradigms and ideas,
then this *is* the right forum to do it. (Well, some of the common-
lispers here might prefer you do it in comp.lang.scheme or
comp.lang.functional, so that they can get on with their more practical
large-system issues...)
Cheers,
--
Andrew
gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote in news:d4b1913d-531e-4628-ac95-
············@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> I really don't
>
> and for some odd reason I have this fascination with forth lisp
> smalltalk io haskell
>
> aggghhh!!
Nobody can say truthfully that Lisp is not used. It is used. But a lot of
programmers want theirs to be new, not used.