Re: Lisp's future

From: Jock Cooper (jockc_at_mail.com)
Date: 01/27/04 

Date: 27 Jan 2004 10:01:44 -0800

viking@funcall.org (Eugene Zaikonnikov) writes:

> gNOSPAMat@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message news:<gNOSPAMat-2601040924420001@192.168.1.51>...
> > In article <3284098411103058KL2065E@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum
> > <erik@naggum.no> wrote:
> >
> > > Common Lisp will always be there for programmers who need to work out
> > > the solution while coding and watching the computer work on the data.
> >
> > Joel Spolsky says this is (unconditionally) a bad idea. See
> > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html.
> >
> Spolsky advocates specification prior to the project, and it is hard
> to disagree that a specification, where it can be rendered, is
> desirable. Unfortunately, in unusual situations one often doesn't know
> in advance how to approach the problem, or if the problem can be
> solved at all. This takes quite some tinkering with data sets, problem
> domain representations and algorithms to fiugre out, and Lisp is a
> very fine tool at that.

Also it seems to me that Spolsky is talking about _functional_ specs.
I'm certainly not going to discuss how I'm going to organize a
program's internal structure with the customer. What exactly the
program will do, yes, but not internals. The 'REPL exploration mode'
is more about the exploring the _design_ of the program.

> Or take for instance reverse engineering. What good is Joel's advice
> when you don't have a protocol or file format specification?
>

Great point.

Jock Cooper 

--
http://www.fractal-recursions.com