Re: An Acceptable Lisp

On Aug 27, 10:28 am, Rainer Joswig <jos...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<d112cae6-86b0-4d9e-9857-eab2b4746...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

Vsevolod <vselo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:29 am, DeverLite <derby.lit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Do we really need or want a 'universal language'?

Need -- don't know, but I suppose, not. Want -- perhaps. At least the
people, who speculate on this topic (not only me, as you can see all
over the internet and in this newsgroup in particular), want. (I don't
mean, though, that I'm not content with the current CL).
As well, it's a pity, that people, who can make a lot in the CL world,
move away to other languages -- this means, that CL doesn't fully meet
their demands (I mean someone, like Paul Graham and Peter Norvig --
not the ones, who are constantly searching for something new or just
don't know, what they want, and follow the wave).

Vsevolod

Sorry, but that is bull***.

Programming languages are tools. There are different types of users,
tasks, different applications to build and different building
methods used. There is not the one tool to build all things.
Do you use a screwdriver for everything? Hammering
nails into the wall? Would the ultimate screwdriver help
with that?

If somebody wants to experiment with new tools, fine.
But this does not make all other tools obsolete.
What we see is that there are different programming languages
with different implementations. There is some overlap in
functionality and there are differences. What is important
to some (say, Lisp syntax or Python's syntax) is
less important to others. Each group of users see
good reasons to like the special feature set. There
are a lot of features that are not possible to have in
one tool. So each tool (which a Common Lisp) has a specific
set of features that in combination make it useful.
Common Lisp had been designed to support an incremental,
interactive software development style where flexibility
is very important. It had been designed to support
the development of complex software by experts. It was
for example not designed to support the education
of computer science students with a minimal language.
I was also not designed to create mission critical
applications that require lots of static checks
(say, like Ada). It was also not designed as a language
to write some kind of business systems in - some which
require decimal numbers.

Paul Graham has some specific design goals. He wants
a smaller, simpler language. He wants short identifiers.
He wants some special magic in the language (read
his book 'On Lisp'?). He has all kinds of design goals
expressed. These goals make the design of that language
not attractive to 'me'. But it could be that there
are others that have similar preferences like Paul.

Peter Norvig doesn't do much with Lisp anymore. Well,
he works for Google, which uses mostly zero Lisp, AFAIK.
Python is popular at Google and it is good enough for
him to use it as an educational language for his
AI books, and it is good enough for them to use
it as a language to write their software in.
If you start at Google, your chance to introduce
Lisp there is close to zero, I guess. The nearest
you get to Lisp at Google is a Symbolics Lisp Machine in their computer
museum:http://flickr.com/photos/mwichary/2179390059/in/set-72157603670797176/

There have been lots of attempts to design a 'better' Lisp.
Some nice Lisps have been defined. None of them gained
much market/mind share. None of them was able to replace
Common Lisp. Lots of work had been put into EuLisp,
Dylan and ISLisp. They are really good language designs.
But if you want to develop now an application in Lisp,
the current Common Lisp implementations are to beat and
that is very, very hard.
I'm sure that a small team of highly skilled hackers
could get a new and smaller Lisp based on something
like Dylan going in a few years. Lots of implementations
started that way in the 80s.

One can develop a new nice Lisp, sure. But it never
will be the 'universal language'.

Why do we have so
many different types of motorized vehicles?
Had Mercedes failed to built the ultimate car? The
universal car? One which you can drive on the
Autobahn and the in Blackforest for work? One that
transports a container and can be used to drive for
shopping in the city?

Programming languages are used by people to write software.
Find a group of people that need a better tool
and develop something for them.

Unless you have a more specific idea than to define the
'universal language', you will FAIL, badly.

--http://lispm.dyndns.org/

I always try to compare programming languages to natural ones (like
the authors of SICP did, when they coined their famous phrase). And I
think this comparison is much more important, than a screwdriver or a
mercedes ones -- those are very limited metaphors. Or, at least,
programming languages may be compared with your hands, because with
them you can make the screwdriver and the mercedes. But that's
philosophy.

Speaking about CL, I understand, what you say about how it fits it's
goals. Moreover it works fine for most of the tasks I can imagine
(because it's more, than just a tool, I think).
But I am trying to understand, what can be done to CL to improve it
without parting with it, like the designers of Qi, Arc and others did.
(By the way, you brought up interesting articles about DKLisp, I'll
definitely read them). And that was not a demand from my side to
create a better Lisp, just a thought-provocation. I am quite content
with the current CL. But, I think, even it can be improved. :)

Vsevolod
.

Quantcast