* Ryan, Martin G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-31 03:30]:
> "This is a similar problem that Forth and Lisp had."
> How so?  Are they multi-paradigmatic leading to a large and
> rich selection of syntax and approaches to choose from?  Or do
> they try to shoe-horn you into a specific approach that suited
> some users/problems but is unsuitable to many?   

Lisp is more multiparadigmatic than any currently extant

Forth is bound quite tightly to imperative style, I think (at
least I can’t imagine how you’d write functional or declarative
programs in it), but doing OO with it is no biggie, at least.

None of that has much to do with syntax.

> "You see how widely used those are now..."
> In certain problem domains each remains the language of choice.
> They weren't aiming to solve as broad a range of problems as
> perl does so one shouldn't expect them to have as high a
> profile.

That is true of Forth, but not Lisp. There’s a reason that Larry
calls Lisp the most beautiful language in the world.

In fact, Perl 6 is the first effort I am aware of where a
language from outside the Lisp family is trying to compete (*and*
win) at all the disciplines Lisp is good at.

Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

Reply via email to