Lists Home |
Date Index |
> > > At the end of the day code and data just aren't that much
> > > like each other. Maybe this is why Lisp never took over the
> > > world, cool though it is. -Tim
Personally, I think the deal with LISP was that it's a bit too advanced
a programming language for most folk. Plus it was never pitched
for commercial applications -- it was aimed at folk who really didn't
have an issue with syntax, and whose problems didn't revolve around
databases and report generation. Even the M-expression notation
didn't get around that.
> > It is very interesting that you say this. I've seen a few people
> > from the Lisp camp complain that XML is simply a more verbose
> > yet less powerful reinvention of Lisp S-expressions with a lot of
> > extra complexity added in (like namespaces, attributes and entity
> > references). [Dale Obasanjo ]
> You have to take that with a grain of salt though.
> There are folks in the Lisp camp who say that about
> *every* new programming technology. "What's the big
> deal about X? It's just a poorly reinvented version
> of feature Y in Common Lisp." [Joe English]
Those criticisms (less powerful, more verbose etc) have
more than a grain of truth to them though.
Consider: send an S-Expression over TCP and (eval) ...
that's "write once, run everywhere" about 30 years before
certain marketroids decided it was a good idea. And
that's just one many examples ... :)