|
|
|
|
|
by mickduprez
2269 days ago
|
|
The comment about C was more to do with perceived speed issues with Lisp but for most situations, Lisps that compile to native code are more than fast enough for general application programming. The point of the article rings true, languages like C/C++ and those based on them do shepherd you into how they work and if you're doing low level programming for drivers etc then they work well, that's their domain (and you wouldn't need half of C++ if it stayed in that arena!). When trying to 'express' or abstract a problem then you have to shoehorn your thoughts into the language. >> being able to dsl, you have to ask how often is that useful? what happens when 10 dsls are built into a code base and you hire a new person? how hard is it to make sense of everything? Probably not as hard as trying to decipher swaths of source code in a language that doesn't make it easy to create the DSL's, instead you end up with API's and code that tries to hide the ugliness of being pushed around by the language. With Lisp you are not so much creating API's or DSL's, you're extending the language to suit the problem, not waiting for the language to catch up. This is freedom! cheers. |
|