Re:What is Symbolic Computation?
by taeric on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @07:39PM
(#12005659)
I am not aware of anyone that is against having a typechecking pass on the code that a LISP author writes. I fully acknowledge that my sphere of knowledge regarding who would be against it is pretty low, though. Do you have specific criticisms in mind?
To me, most of the criticisms I see on LISP almost always come down to gripes about the parentheses. Usually it is said jokingly, but it is also the only criticism.
Worse are when there are claims that there are no IDEs that can help with LISP. I don't even know what to say to that one. The birth of the modern IDE can easily be traced to predecessors of emacs. (Indeed, for most purposes today, the only difference between emacs and other IDEs is the language of extension. And... emacs being able to edit itself largely as it runs.)
None of this is to say that a LISP is the panacea of development. I just don't think there is a panacea anymore.
To me, most of the criticisms I see on LISP almost always come down to gripes about the parentheses. Usually it is said jokingly, but it is also the only criticism.
Worse are when there are claims that there are no IDEs that can help with LISP. I don't even know what to say to that one. The birth of the modern IDE can easily be traced to predecessors of emacs. (Indeed, for most purposes today, the only difference between emacs and other IDEs is the language of extension. And... emacs being able to edit itself largely as it runs.)
None of this is to say that a LISP is the panacea of development. I just don't think there is a panacea anymore.