On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:12 +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> On 14/10/16 22:01, r...@tamos.net wrote:
> > But picolisp is for experienced programmers, a class of people who
> > have no problem building software.
> Isn't this a bit of a truism. There is nothing in the language
> itself making it unsuitable for an UN-experienced programmer.
> Because of various particulars, the barrier is higher to get started in
> for a random stranger, but nothing that can't be fixed eventually.
I agree, taken out of the original context, as you have it here. But
*in context*, the issue is "not having a pre-built package for
picolisp will be (among other things) a barrier for new users." I
disagree with that. I agree with Mike -- I don't believe it to be
necessary. One reason (given in this part) is that the typical new
user won't see this as a barrier. They tend not to be rank beginner
programmers. (I can't prove this, mind you, but I'm just relying on
some anecdotal evidence; so, yes, it's arguable. :)