Comments on Lisp

[diep]

See: http://lispers.org/

You are living in the ancient past.

Man you need a few courses to make up.

C/C++ is a lot faster than LISP. It is easier to program in than LISP.
It is not only easier & faster, it also is easier to debug than LISP.

Too easy to forget a ( or a ) in lisp.

It is better cross platform than LISP as well if you know how to program,
and you get rid of that f***** interpreter.

Even C# and JAVA are far better than lisp, yes even javascript is better than lisp.

Also interpreted it totally outguns LISP in speed.

Everyone who wrote some code in a functional environment (and i did) knows soon how total impossible it is to keep maintaining functional codebases such as LISP ones.

It's just total disaster.

A chessprogram is simply way too big to write in LISP.

Further it's just not true that functional programming is closer to human thinking. It isn't!

Imperative programming or for my part imperative programming enhanced with some object orientation, is a far more easier thing for programmers to understand what the heck they are doing.

As it'll take time to cure you, i advice you at new year 2007/2008 to make a big new year fire out of all your functional programming books.

Vincent

[Dan Andersson]

It's true Lisp is old. AFAIK it's the second oldest PL still in use.

As for speed it all depends on what you define as way slower. The open source Steel Banks Common Lisp clocks in at about 1.6 times the run time average of c,c++ in several micro benchmark suites.. Not much room there to tuck in all those other languages you mention. That is unless you run a purely interpreted REPL when CL is about as fast as interpreted languages are. The REPL would be used during development. Its a pretty good debugging tool.

As for functional code base maintenance being impossible. Better tell Ericsson that they are up the creek with all their millions of lines of Erlang.

You are presenting a straw man argument with: "Further it's just not true that functional programming is closer to human thinking. It isn't!"
My understanding is that the claim is that functional programming is easier to reason about with referential transparency and equational reasoning.

MvH Dan Andersson

[GeoffW]

Having read Vincent's post, I have a feeling that Steven's motivation levels to get Symbolic beating the c**p out of all the conventional C++ alpha/beta engines has just gone up by a notch or two

Geoff

[nczempin]

See: http://lispers.org/

You are living in the ancient past.

Man you need a few courses to make up.

C/C++ is a lot faster than LISP. It is easier to program in than LISP.
It is not only easier & faster, it also is easier to debug than LISP.

Too easy to forget a ( or a ) in lisp.

It is better cross platform than LISP as well if you know how to program,
and you get rid of that f***** interpreter.

Even C# and JAVA are far better than lisp, yes even javascript is better than lisp.

Also interpreted it totally outguns LISP in speed.

Everyone who wrote some code in a functional environment (and i did) knows soon how total impossible it is to keep maintaining functional codebases such as LISP ones.

It's just total disaster.

A chessprogram is simply way too big to write in LISP.

Further it's just not true that functional programming is closer to human thinking. It isn't!

Imperative programming or for my part imperative programming enhanced with some object orientation, is a far more easier thing for programmers to understand what the heck they are doing.

As it'll take time to cure you, i advice you at new year 2007/2008 to make a big new year fire out of all your functional programming books.

Vincent

Don't feed the Trolls!

For a good troll, you should have included more swearwords.

Let me make up for it: You don't have #+$%&%$ clue!

[jshriver]

If you want power in a few statements, look at "APL". Blows everything else away.

What is APL?

[sje]

Wikipedia is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_%28pro ... anguage%29