Re: Lisp article at IBM
- From: "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Mar 2007 05:06:59 -0800
On Feb 25, 9:46 pm, Stefan Nobis <sno...@xxxxxx> wrote:
"Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
If becoming mainstream is pure coincidence, then computing the time
LISP is in the market, it would be mainstream two or three times
(because probability for an outcome increases with observation
Wrong. This is not one single ongoing experiment.
I was speaking about p(t) series, therefore I have no idea what do you
mean by "This is not one single ongoing experiment."
From time to time
there are opportunities when a new language is selected by the
mainstream. Each time a random selection is made independently, so the
chance of a long term player isn't raising.
If, as you say, choosing a language over time is pure azar, why do we
look zero LISP-peaks in the temporal series? Why much younger
languages present popularity peaks when would be much less probable?
Data does not support your assertions.
Also if mainstream is a pure question of azar, why so many attempts
to modify (to adapt) LISP? I see that atempt also in recent Arc
Because of taste. And because most people don't recognise that
popularity of languages is purly coincidence.
And if again is pure coincidence, why traditional LISP survives,
whereas any other attempt to modify LISP is forgotten in the past? If
popularity is pure azar, then about a 50% of today used LISPs would be
traditional LISP and another 50% (aprox) would be alternative LISPs;
e.g. LISPs with ALGOL-like syntax.
As far as I know LISP community has always rejected alternative LISPs
because lacking power or elegance or both not because coins.
Again data does not support your assertions.
before CL... I can assure you my preferences are not at azar andFrom a personal point of view I like LISP before Java or C, and Scheme
current popularity of Java does not change my view -I really hate