[linux-elitists] Opera beta for linux available
Sun Oct 8 14:05:58 PDT 2000
Deirdre Saoirse writes:
> Artificial languages do not have the ability to express *anything*.
Hogwash. Proof: you have a job.
> Thus, your comparison really isn't valid.
> In part, but in many cases it's simply the pragmatism of the approach. For
> example, Smalltalk is not a commercial success as far as distributing
> software goes, but it has a niche in in-house development, mostly in
> academia and sometimes in corporations. The reason for its lack of
> commercial succes IS almost exclusively because of the language concept.
Smalltalk is not a bad language, I've read some reports of a company
exclusively using it. (It may have warts, I've never used it).
> > Sure, sometimes there's syntactic constructs that make things easier
> > -- but, really, if you're just getting a job done, does it really
> > matter whether you say:
> > Really? Really really? Or is it rather just picky aesthetics? (Having
> > a nice language where you can extend the syntax makes even syntax
> > differences fairly moot.)
> Rick and I had a talk about this over lunch. About the kinds of things
> Prolog was good for as opposed to Lisp as opposed to your typical
> imperative language.
Prolog was just a language front end to an inference engine (which you
can write in a few screenfulls of Lisp). Lisp isn't a purely
functional language as you well know, you can mix imperative and
functional stuff ad lib. The major minus of Lisp that it has never
been enforcibly standartized, had a relatively fat memory footprint
and initially lousy compilers and arithmetics, which hasn't been true
for a while.
The reason Lisp is not being used now widely is the same reason Forth
is not: vogues and subcriticality.
More information about the linux-elitists