From: William James Date: 2009-02-23T19:39:28+09:00 Subject: Re: Nexus Programming Language Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > Robert Klemme writes: > > > On 22.02.2009 17:26, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > > > >> Just stop the sillyness, let's all use Common Lisp, the ultimate > >> programming language! > > > > Frankly, Pascal you're doing a bit too much Lisp advocacy recently. > > Not that I have anything against Lisp or you advocating it. But I > > find it impolite to do that in forum dedicated to a different > > programming language. > > > > Cheers > > > > robert > > > > > > PS: Yes, I know you probably did not mean it that serious but you're > > bringing up that topic a bit too often for my taste. > > I understand. But in a thread in clr consacred to another programming > language, I though it was worthwhile to mention it. I see all these > younglings searching and searching, trying to invent yet another > language, and not seeing that what they're tending to is just Lisp. Post some Commune Lisp solutions to some programming problems. I think it will be fun to compare them to Ruby solutions. Commune Lisp code is incredibly bloated, inelegant, and ugly. Those who use it seem to delight in writing 10 lines of code when 1 line should do. Those who use it have no taste. Bernard Lang: Common Lisp did kill Lisp. Period. (just languages take a long time dying ...) It is to Lisp what C++ is to C. A monstrosity that totally ignores the basics of language design, simplicity and orthogonality to begin with. Gilles Kahn: To this day I have not forgotten that Common Lisp killed Lisp, and forced us to abandon a perfectly good system, LeLisp. Paul Graham, May 2001: A hacker's language is terse and hackable. Common Lisp is not. The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp. Jeffrey M. Jacobs: Common LISP is the PL/I of Lisps. Too big and too incomprehensible, with no examiniation of the real world of software engineering. ... The CL effort resembles a bunch of spoiled children, each insisting "include my feature or I'll pull out, and then we'll all go down the tubes". Everybody had vested interests, both financial and emotional. CL is a nightmare; it has effectively killed LISP development in this country. It is not commercially viable and has virtually no future outside of the traditional academic/defense/research arena. Dick Gabriel: Common Lisp is a significantly ugly language. If Guy and I had been locked in a room, you can bet it wouldn't have turned out like that. Having separate "value cells" and "function cells" (to use the "street language" way of saying it) was one of the most unfortuanate issues. We did not want to break pre-existing programs that had a global variable named "foo" and a global function named "foo" that were distinct. We at Symbolics were forced to insist on this, in the face of everyone's knowing that it was not what we would have done absent compatibility constraints. It's hard for me to remember all the specific things like this, but if we had had fewer compatibility issues, I think it would have come out looking more like Scheme in general. --- Daniel Weinreb, 24 Feb 2003 I have found that the disciples of Commune Lisp (CL) are literally that---disciples. They are completely irrational in their religious devotion to the language. I suspect that to them, CL stands for the name of their god: Commode Lord. If you want to use a Lisp, I suggest Clojure.