[OT] Re: Who modified my local variable?

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Tue Jun 13 15:23:39 MDT 2006

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:10 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> I guess you threw in that flamebait for fun. :-)
> But I'm not looking for flamebait.  In all honesty, I'd like to know
> more about the "and more" part of your LISP statement.  What am I
> missing by not using LISP?  I don't mean some random feature like
> pretty-printing numbers.  What deep philosophy is in LISP that other
> languages have yet to discover?

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.  There is no deep philosophy that I
know of.  But in seriousness, LISP can implement all of our paradigms
including object-oriented programming.  And some folks swear by it (some
at it).  I think that saying you should use LISP for everything is a bit
like saying you should do everything in a turing machine.  LISP in my
mind has always been about demonstrating concepts.  For example, LISP
and similar languages like Scheme have always been good languages to
learn about algorithms, data structures, building new languages, and so
forth.  Even new-fangled concepts like meta programming (dynamic
programming) have been doable in LISP for years they tell me.  I think
the argument goes that any programming concept can be reduced to
something in lisp (just balance those parens!), although you might not
immediately recognize the form, nor would the LISP form necessarily be
efficient.  Recent versions of LISP have added syntactic sugar to wrap
things like object-oriented programming, etc.

> Shane
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */

More information about the PLUG mailing list