Re: why not enough lisp libraries?

From: Peter Seibel (peter_at_gigamonkeys.com)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:58:22 GMT

Matthias <no@spam.pls> writes:

> Personally speaking, I dislike it if people make claims "programming
> language/ editor/ library/ development method ('methodology' if you
> want to sound educated) such-and-such is X-times more productive
> than alternatives" without providing any evidence. And no, personal
> anecdotes do not count as evidence.

Hmmm. Why not? Given the difficulties of setting up an experiment that
controls for the many variables that go into software productivity in
order to isolate the effect of programming language, it seems a bit
rash to reject out of hand the judgement of skilled practitioners of
an art/craft/whatever about which tools make them more productive.

If someone is expert in two programming languages, A and B, and tells
me that they find language A allows them to get more done with fewer
errors than language B that's, to me, an interesting data point. It
may not predict that I'll necessarily be more productive in A than B
but it at least makes me want to know why it's true for that
programmer. Is it something about the way they approach programming?
Is it specific to the particular kind of software they are writing? Or
maybe they've even misjudged the productivity gain--I'd like to know
by what measures they are more productive and know more about their
specific situation to make sure there isn't an easier explanation. For
instance if they wrote a program once in B and then again in A and the
second time went faster, I'd be more likely to attribute that to the
benefit of experience. But if they tried again to write it in B and it
still took longer than writing it in A, I'd start to think the
difference between A and B might have something to do with it.

> Studies and experiments, properly analyzed by statisticians, do.
>
> As long as such evidence is not available (and it's hard to produce)
> it would be much more convincing for language advocates to just write
> great software that people like to use. There's no better advocacy
> than a cool project people like to join in.

Sure.

-Peter 

-- 
Peter Seibel                                     peter@gigamonkeys.com
         Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management
    ... the *market* favors them for their market ... the correlation between success and productivity is independent of the ... > many people use the programming language that is the best one, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management
    ... the *market* favors them for their market ... the correlation between success and productivity is independent of the ... > many people use the programming language that is the best one, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Productivity study
    ... If somebody wrote a paper saying: "Hey, there's a programming language ... that gives 10x to 50x the productivity than any other programming ... But, seriously, how many formal studies are there on Lisp productivity? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: VB or VC++?
    ... Duane Arnold wrote: ... programming for Windows but bypassing .Net. ... and platforms will assure something called "productivity" is a ... The language reminds me of an old time cigarette advertisement. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: VB5 Long & Double to VB.NET
    ... I do not have any evidence that it will and I do not have any ... How many times VB6 programmers tell that they have an unbalanced call ... Why does MICROSOFT guidelines tell you to use language ... programming rules that all the rest of the programming world are used to. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)