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. :) -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:email@example.com?subject=Unsubscribe