On 14/10/16 23:03, r...@tamos.net wrote:
> 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. :)
Oh, I agree with you, for now it's like you say.
But given, that PicoLisp is such a charmingly small and simple language,
we should strive to lower where ever we can, so that one day,
it can be the language of choice for the inexperienced programmer,
for instance in a teaching setting at a university.