> Bob Rogers wrote: >> Some people aren't aware that Lisp is primarily a compiled language >> (which I bet is also true for Perl).
Most "My language is better than yours" arguments rest on the basic fallacy of comparing the original published version of yours against my favorite industrialized ruggedized modern version of mine. >> Even so, nobody thinks Lisp is a >> "scripting language." Go figure. Mark J. Dulcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied > Lisp Machine programmers did! Users of the Interleaf Publisher, now QuickSilver, system are accustomed to scripting their application with Lisp. Scheme-in-one-Defun (SIOD) is a simple way to add a scripting / config / extension facility to an existing C/C++ application. > (Modern Lisps do have > strings as a native character type -- I remember the days when they > didn't and character manipulation was a real hack See point 1 above above My 7.2 vs your 1.0 ... -- but Perl is still > easier for that sort of thing.) Most dialects don't really facilitate > the processing of command line arguments. Contrariewise, Lisp rocks at creating parsers, so if scripting means automating manual tasks in an application as well as in a shell, reading config files and application workflow definitions is scripting, and Lisp rocks for that. Perl 6 will achieve parity with Lisp/Smalltalk for "the parser is built in". > And historically the > implementations were a bit heavyweight to load for short-term tasks like > you would use a scripting language for. Historically, except for the many many Read-Eval-Print lightweights of which SIOD is only the widest disseminated. -- Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
