News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video]. Parent comment

Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by galfarragem on Thursday October 17, 2019 @06:51AM (#21280673)
An historical mistake that humanity is paying (and will pay) for a long time.

Scheme 'cloths' was a viable option. Lisp remains the most popular scripting language among Autocad users despite Autodesk pushing other languages (.NET and JS). So popular that Autocad clones use it also as a scripting language[1].

Edited [1] https://www.zwsoft.com/zwcad/features#Dynamic-Block

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by ben509 on Thursday October 17, 2019 @07:40AM (#21280945)
Was it a mistake, though? Languages have to be accessible to their audience, and Javascript caught on because of its relatively gentle learning curve.

If SchemeScript hadn't caught on, it might have been that VBScript took over the web.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by hyperpallium on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:01AM (#21281082)
Insufficiently C-like languages get ignored, according to: http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-m...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by doboyy on Thursday October 17, 2019 @01:57PM (#21284657)
Language designers and enthusiats will forever be disappointed at how many social and human factors are at play, which coincidentally, is a large part of the motivation for programming languages
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by daliusd on Thursday October 17, 2019 @06:57AM (#21280708)
I was working for bigest Autocad competitor for more than 10 years and never had to touch anything similar to lisp :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Isn't Functional Programming the Norm? [video] by lisptw102019 on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:01AM (#21281080)
If my guess is right, that's because your company's product had their own proprietary language (MDL).

But, that was OK too, because if my guess is right, your company's product also had FAR FAR FAR better COM bindings than Autocad did for 99% of what you'd want to automate.

[ Parent | on HN ]