Re:Not Lisp again (2009)
by gumby on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @01:49PM
(#14248705)
> The objections the author had way back in the day are no longer the objections programmers of mainstream languages have to Lisp today.
> Today the objections I hear are more along the lines of:
> 3 - Lisp doesn't have as many libraries as the most popular mainstream programming languages.
Amusingly one of the "objections" to Common Lisp when it was standardized was its absurdly large library. Things sure look different today.
I have to say though that many languages have a large number of libraries, the quality is, naturally, variable.+ The real library strength of a language is the power of its standard library. (Admittedly some of that can come via lore or acculturation, e.g. numpy. On the other hand, what legs will, say, react have? Who knows?)
+ no examples because I have no desire to insult anyone -- rather thanks for releasing your code!
Re:Not Lisp again (2009)
by blowski on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @02:36PM
(#14249218)
The number of bad libraries doesn't affect the number of good libraries, so that is still an important distinction. Also, if an average quality library is good enough that I don't need to spend a few weeks doing it myself, that's still a bonus.
> Today the objections I hear are more along the lines of:
> 3 - Lisp doesn't have as many libraries as the most popular mainstream programming languages.
Amusingly one of the "objections" to Common Lisp when it was standardized was its absurdly large library. Things sure look different today.
I have to say though that many languages have a large number of libraries, the quality is, naturally, variable.+ The real library strength of a language is the power of its standard library. (Admittedly some of that can come via lore or acculturation, e.g. numpy. On the other hand, what legs will, say, react have? Who knows?)
+ no examples because I have no desire to insult anyone -- rather thanks for releasing your code!