On 10/25/04 7:58 AM, "Ralph Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is important to know why great programming languages > don't get more market share because until we figure out > how to make them win, it is hardly worth inventing better languages. I know that I only used Lisp in a Programming Languages course. It certainly did NOT give me a feel for the types of problems the language could solve and was good at solving. Speaking for myself, I only thought about the role of programming language in framing the solution to a problem when I was forced to change my way of thinking from procedural to OO. The examples in Ruminations on C++ (by Andrew Koenig) finally made that explicit in my mind - rather than just being a sub-concious piece of baggage. I still don't know Lisp well but I now see many problems that it can handle nicely in the financial modeling world. There are rumors that my current employer uses a private language that LOOKS sort-of OO as a wrapper around LISP in order to do Monte Carlo financial simulations. However, my employer (apperently) would rather train people in this private language rather than have them write Lisp directly. I now wonder why this is true. Shalom Reich _______________________________________________ patterns-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
