News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Another go at the Next Big Language. Parent comment

Re:Another go at the Next Big Language by jhuni on Monday September 03, 2012 @03:37AM (#4469475)
> Because you just (presumably) discovered the hammer of Lisp, it doesn't mean anything has to be Lisp like.

I didn't "just discover the hammer of Lisp", I discovered it quite a while ago and I haven't looked back since. For example, I have been posting Lisp code in this blog for at least a couple of years: http://lisp-ai.blogspot.com/.

> Where is your PROOF for what you say, computer SCIENTIST?

The burden of proof is not on the Lisp community to prove the worth of its fifty year old technology. Lisp outdates C-based languages by at least a decade, so it really should be up to C and the other new languages to prove their worth.

So the burden of proof isn't on me, its up to YOU to prove to me that there is a new language that has advantages over Lisp. And if your designing the "next big language" please prove to me that there is any reason Lispers should be interested in it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Another go at the Next Big Language by m00natic on Monday September 03, 2012 @05:07AM (#4469689)
Thanks for the link!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Another go at the Next Big Language by batista on Monday September 03, 2012 @06:17AM (#4469877)
>The burden of proof is not on the Lisp community to prove the worth of its fifty year old technology. Lisp outdates C-based languages by at least a decade, so it really should be up to C and the other new languages to prove their worth.

The burden of proof doesn't change sides based on ...age. Algol68 is older than Haskell, but still most experts will agree that Haskell is better.

As for it being "up to C and the other new languages to prove their worth." that's what I just said. By ratio of useful, must have programs (including code used in space missions), C wins, and Lisp doesn't have much (if anything) to show for.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Another go at the Next Big Language by cageface on Monday September 03, 2012 @11:25AM (#4470667)
I discovered a long time ago that the benefits of Lisp are more than outweighed by the frothing zealotry of a lot of the members of the Lisp community that just can't see that almost every single language design decision is about tradeoffs and not about right or wrong.

Lisp seems to attract people that are a little mentally imbalanced.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Another go at the Next Big Language by jhuni on Monday September 03, 2012 @07:39AM (#4470017)
> By ratio of useful, must have programs (including code used in space missions), C wins, and Lisp doesn't have much (if anything) to show for.

Those programs may as well as have been written in brainfuck for all I care. You can write as many programs you want in a language, that doesn't make that language better.

At the very earliest stage in their functioning, C programs go through a pre-processor that is so horribly stupid it was completely removed from D. Thats just the start of it...

http://wiki.theory.org/YourLanguageSucks#C_sucks_because:

[ Parent | on HN ]