Re:Where Lisp Fits
by JeanPierre on Monday February 03, 2014 @02:26PM
(#7172879)
And if you ask me, its just so good that we haven't needed a revision in 20 years.
Re:Where Lisp Fits
by mrottenkolber on Monday February 03, 2014 @02:48PM
(#7172977)
We do have BORDEAUX-THREADS (defacto standard for OSS implementations). The commercial vendors supply various high perfomace concurrency frameworks.
> its just so good that we haven't needed a revision in 20 years
This is part of why I no longer use Common Lisp (after using it professionally for about 10 years). There are clear bugs in the spec, but it will never change. If your language is not progressing, it is dead.
Re:Where Lisp Fits
by kennethtilton on Monday February 10, 2014 @09:38AM
(#7211250)
Nonsense. The standards process is a beast, so no one is going to kick it off for anything other than a good solid rethink. As others have noted, the language and spec are done, aka pretty much ideal. Go write some code, people.
ps. Love elsewhere a mention of "modern-style" language development. Sounds like "make it up as we go", what Lisp was doing in the sixties.
That's right: The spec will never be revised, not because it already defines the ideal programming language (is that really your argument?), but because the effort and expense is so great.
Re:Where Lisp Fits
by kennethtilton on Thursday February 20, 2014 @07:57PM
(#7274775)
Maybe somewhere in between. The imperfections are so small that even a modest effort would never get undertaken. Something folks need to realize is that Lisp truly is a metalanguage: I think both Graham and Norvig knocked off quick and dirty OOP hacks when that (decent) fad came along. So it is hard to imagine what innovation might come along that would force us to get the Lisp hood up.
It is STILL true that we have a great standard which only includes the "definitely right" things. And if you ask me, its just so good that we haven't needed a revision in 20 years.