Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- From: Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:41:06 -0700
In article <87d47d9uey.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
pjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Since I've been critical of the state of Common Lisp in the past I
thought it incumbent on me to go on the record and say that I've
reassessed the situation over the past few months and things seem to be
much improved. It's still more effort to assemble a comprehensive and
working collection of Lisp libraries than, say, Python (which requires
no effort at all since everything is included),
That's not true. A few weeks ago, I wanted to install some
reStructured Text package, and it didn't work. I had to search and
install two other python packages before being able to use it.
And yesterday I wanted to use dvdrip (a perl package) and I couldn't
use it before searching and installing another perl thingy (and it
gave error messages that were far from clear).
Generally, I have fewer problems in using lisp software than python or perl.
"Everything" is, of course, overstating it. But Python comes with a
much more comprehensive standard library than Lisp does.
rg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- From: John Higgins
- Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- References:
- Reassessing the state of Lisp
- From: Ron Garret
- Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
- Reassessing the state of Lisp
- Prev by Date: Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- Next by Date: Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- Previous by thread: Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- Next by thread: Re: Reassessing the state of Lisp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|