pointless rant against newlisp and other tangents.
- From: "funkyj" <funkyj@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Jul 2006 11:36:23 -0700
Yves Vandriessche wrote:
klaus wrote:
gavino schrieb:
for a sysdamin, lightweight scripting labguages with decent OS
interface are better.
TCL, Ruby, Python, .... are all great choices.
-klaus.
Newlisp certainly fixes this, you have a full OS interface you would
expect from bash/tcl.
<rant>
Newlisp, UGH. The fact that Newlisp has quite a few gratuitious
semantic differences from CL really turns me off (e.g. why timewarp
back to the 70s/80s and have all dynamic variables!?).
I would have been much happier of the Newlisp folks had simply put
their energy into modifying an existing CL implementation (e.g. CLisp)
to be better suited for scripting.
I do not want to have to know MORE languages, I want to know FEWER
languages with deeper knowledge. Having to learn the gratuitious
differences between newlisp and CL is like having to remember TCL
syntax -- it is a waste of brain cells.
Thankfully Python has enough features that I've been able to forget
much of what I've learned about Perl and TCL.
I'm also annoyed that Emacs Lisp is not Common Lisp based but since
emacs won the editor war with HEMLOCK by a overwhelming landslide I am
stuck with using the emacs 'cl' compability package and gritting my
teeth at the remaining differences.
</rant>
--fj
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Why is lisp better than java perl or python or ruby?
- From: gavino
- Re: Why is lisp better than java perl or python or ruby?
- From: klaus
- Re: Why is lisp better than java perl or python or ruby?
- From: Yves Vandriessche
- Why is lisp better than java perl or python or ruby?
- Prev by Date: Re: Minimal keywords needed for constructing a full CL system
- Next by Date: Re: Lisp, Jazz, Aikido
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is lisp better than java perl or python or ruby?
- Next by thread: Re: pointless rant against newlisp and other tangents.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|