|
> With lisp machines, we can cut out the complicated multi-language, multi library mess from the stack, eliminate memory leaks and questions of type safety, binary exploits, and millions of lines of sheer complexity that clog up modern computers. Oh man, wat? I love lisp as much as the next guy. But you absolutely can have library mess, memory leaks, and millions of lines of code using a Lisp. You arguably can have a "multi-language" mess, too, because Lisp gives you wonderful tools to create DSLs; I'd say creating a language that fits your needs, and then using it, is the right way to use Lisp. I use Emacs daily, and see how an all-Lisp environment can make for a good, productive interactive experience. More efforts in this area would be quite welcome, but this is a shell, not a kernel. I still suppose that systems software, and especially the key parts of an OS, need a language more like Rust than like Lisp, with a good affinity to raw hardware, and a ton of static guarantees. |