OFF-TOPIC:: Why Lisp is not my favorite programming language

[goose]

(e-mail address removed) (Mike Nishizawa) wrote in message
please dont top-post.
tia.

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT."

So is the post I am now responding to!

At the risk of offending you, are you sure that your last 3 years
as a programmer have properly equipped you to make informed
decisions like the ones you've made below?

quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Pick a fairly simple application ... lets say a tic-tac-toe
game. Are you certain that the game implemented in java will
run on more platforms than the same game implemented in ANSI
C?

C has many many weaknesses; platform dependence is /not/ one of
them.

<snipped stuff I am in agreement with>

goose,

 

[Ray Dillinger]

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.

The solution to your problem is obvious. Just treat Lisp like
Chocolate; if you don't like it, you can't have any.

Followups set.

Bear

 

[Yuri Schaeffer]

I goofed!

I'm trying to write a news server and did some test with a random header
I found in this group. But I forgot to set newsgroups to a test group...
So the above is not a repost, just my garbage. It also was a crosspost,
that does make me realy bad doesn't it?
(sorry)

yuri

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

Pick a fairly simple application ... lets say a tic-tac-toe
game. Are you certain that the game implemented in java will
run on more platforms than the same game implemented in ANSI
C?

Absolutely certain if it uses a GUI. Otherwise, it depends very much
on the C programmer, whereas even the most incompetent Java programmer
will find it hard to casually insert a platform dependance.

C has many many weaknesses; platform dependence is /not/ one of
them.

Like *hell* it isn't!

- sizes of basic types differ between platforms and compilers
- newly allocated memory may or may not be zeroed
- sctructs may or may not be padded, variables may or may
not need to be aligned
- etc.

Yes, you can work around all of them, but it takes an active effort. There's
a reason why it's now common practice to buld C applications with GNU
autoconf, making the build a *three*-level process (counting pre-processor,
compilation and linking together as only one). And it still often fails
with cryptic error messages.

 

[Mike Nishizawa]

Quite valid arguments. However I have one question to ask, I am quite
naive with LISP { just couple of weekends ) but I think the OP did
raise some doubts in my mind. I mean to me LISP looks right now to be
just OK. Some people said that with all the () it is difficult to code
in but I think that with proper indentation that is absolutely
ludicurous. However when some one says that the code might be 31.?
times slower as compared to C, kinda of scares me. Could assert such
figures. I know speed is not the one and only goal but just wondering
if these figures are correct.


Thanks

I would ask what the C program is doing. If it beats LISP at it's own
game which is, list processing, then that would be different. I don't
think I would choose to write an enterprise application in it, but I
think it's as good a choice as anything for any type of parsing
applications. And to the smart guy who feels like he can take a stab
at me for calling lisp a parsing language... consider: a parser is,
by definition, something that analyzes or separates (input, for
example) into more easily processed components. Let's take a
document, for instance. If I wanted to parse the document and
separate it into words, I would write a parser to do so. What is a
document but a list of words separated by spaces... an especially good
application for a LISt Processing language.

 

[Jacek Generowicz]

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing,

an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

 

[Mike Nishizawa]

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing,

an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

2 words pal, settle down. If you weren't such a fanatic you would
realize that we are not not saying anything that different. I have
simply used a different, more simple example. I learned AI
development with LISP. I have used it in web applications in the
past. I realize that it is used for more advanced applications and I
am not limiting the functionality of it to a parser. I am saying that
it's native functionality is list processing and had to defend my
earlier position that it makes it good for parsing files because you
seem to want to zealously attack me if I don't present LISP in it's
greatest possible light.

The original point of the post was simply to say one language is the
best for all applications is stupid. If you plan to develop
something, choose the language that it is most suited to solving the
problem instead of trying to say that EVERYTHING from drivers to
enterprise applications should be developed in one language. If I had
known you were out there ready to pounce on anyone who might give a
simple example of LISP and therefore, in your opinion, simplify the
language or what it can do, I would have said AI instead of parser and
saved myself the trouble of being persecuted by a zealot.