OFF-TOPIC:: Why Lisp is not my favorite programming language

[nobody]

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.

The opinions expressed herein are my personal ones, coming
from several years of experience with Lisp. I did plenty of
AI programming back in the day, which is what would now be
called "search" instead.

Due to time constraints, I will refrain from posting any
follow-ups here. Participants of other newsgroups are well
aware of comp.lang.lispers' tendency to engage in personal
attacks, so a productive discussion with them is unlikely
anyway.

Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document
without restrictions.
================================================== =======
Why Lisp is not my favorite programming language.
================================================== =======
(In the following, "Lisp" refers to ANSI Common Lisp)

This article is a collection of facts anyone interested in
Lisp should know about.

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 1: The fastest Lisp implementations are slow

(See any third-party benchmark: The Great Computer Language
Shootout comes to mind, but the Coyote Culch test is in my
optinion even better: it is a professional-quality
interlanguage benchmark)

As a rule of thumb, the most hand-optimized Lisp programs
will be longer than their C/C++ equivalents, and will run
2-20 times slower using the best compilers.

This alone is half the truth. To get such performance out
of Lisp, one has to add type declarations and shed all
safety checks, which is analogous to casting /everything/
to (void*) in C. This is needed to turn off type tag checks
at run time.

Sadly, Lisp code that was posted to USENET by Pascal
Bourguignon for the Coyote Gulch test did not measure up
even to these low expectations and was 31.6 times slower
than C++, using CMUCL 18d as a Lisp compiler and Intel C++
7.1 (with -O3 -xW optimization switches) as a C++ compiler
on Pentium IV.

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 2: No one but a small clique of fanatics likes it

No matter how odd or perverted the cause, there will be
followers. In fact, the odder the cause, the fewer, but
more fervent its followers are. Look at any religious cult,
like Scientology, or take a peek in comp.lang.lisp and
listen to Lisp zealots talk about 'making sacrifices for
the cause' (in all seriousness!). Look up "a public
apology" thread started by Pascal Costanza as an excellent
example.

ZEALOTS STOP AT NOTHING TO ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE, AND
PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYONE WITH A DISSENTING OPTINION IS
THE FIRST THING IN THEIR ARSENAL.

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 3: The vast majority of people who study Lisp in
school, never want to use it again.

You should already know this if you studied or taught CS
where Lisp courses were offered. Even those students who
are fond of Scheme are usually disgusted by Lisp.

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 4: Lisp is the most complicated language in the world

It has the biggest standard specification document, which
is also the most obfuscated one - something a lawyer
pretending to be a programmer could have written. C, C++
and Fortran 95 specs are much better written, by people who
can communicate directly and eloquently.

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 5: Despite its size, Lisp does not define threads or
GUI.

Large libraries are very useful when programming, however
Lisp's many functions and macros hardly qualify.

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 6: There is no open-source cross-platform native-code
compiler

It was suggested that GCL (GNU Common Lisp) is the only
exception. However, it needs to be noted, that despite its
name, GCL is a dialect of its own, is quite slow even by
Lisp standards, and most alarmingly, unlike with other
compilers, its license requires your, programmer, code to
be GPL if you distribute it with GCL. (Because you will
need to use GCL both as a compiler and a run time library)

---------------------------------------------------------

FACT 7: There is no standard C interface.

C has become a lingua franca for interlanguage APIs. It may
be unfair, but not having a standard C interface is a
serious problem for any language.
EPILOGUE:

I do not hate Lisp, and I think it was a fine tool decades
ago, and I am not going to say "Lisp sucks". However, now
that we have superior languages for coding close to the
iron, high-performance computing, number crunching,
algorithms, scripting and gluing components together, Lisp
should be finally retired.

[Matthias Felleisen]

nobody wrote:

EPILOGUE:

I do not hate Lisp, and I think it was a fine tool decades
ago, and I am not going to say "Lisp sucks". However, now
that we have superior languages for coding close to the
iron, high-performance computing, number crunching,
algorithms, scripting and gluing components together, Lisp
should be finally retired.

somebody answers:

Lisp has been declared dead for the past N years. Unlike Algol, Simula 67, PL/I,
Pascal, ... and many more languages that came and went, it is still alife and
kicking. It will be alive and fun to program in for many years to come, because
it still has many advantages over C#, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, and many other
languages that *will* come and go before Lisp is truly retired.

Long live Scheme

And now it's time to go back and strengthen Scheme even more.

-- Matthias Felleisen, PLT

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

In comp.lang.c nobody <no****************@yahoo.com> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.
Wow, isn't that nice of you to post for Mr. Yang. I'm sure I, like
everyone on comp.lang.c, is utterly fascinated by Lisp and Mr. Yang's
critique of it. Likewise, I'm sure, for the happy inhabitants of
comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.java.programmer, and comp.lang.python.

Followups set, anonymous crossposting troll.
The opinions expressed herein are my personal ones, coming
from several years of experience with Lisp. I did plenty of
AI programming back in the day, which is what would now be
called "search" instead. Due to time constraints, I will refrain from posting any
follow-ups here. Participants of other newsgroups are well
aware of comp.lang.lispers' tendency to engage in personal
attacks, so a productive discussion with them is unlikely
anyway. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document
without restrictions.
================================================== =======
Why Lisp is not my favorite programming language.
================================================== =======
(In the following, "Lisp" refers to ANSI Common Lisp) This article is a collection of facts anyone interested in
Lisp should know about. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 1: The fastest Lisp implementations are slow (See any third-party benchmark: The Great Computer Language
Shootout comes to mind, but the Coyote Culch test is in my
optinion even better: it is a professional-quality
interlanguage benchmark) As a rule of thumb, the most hand-optimized Lisp programs
will be longer than their C/C++ equivalents, and will run
2-20 times slower using the best compilers. This alone is half the truth. To get such performance out
of Lisp, one has to add type declarations and shed all
safety checks, which is analogous to casting /everything/
to (void*) in C. This is needed to turn off type tag checks
at run time. Sadly, Lisp code that was posted to USENET by Pascal
Bourguignon for the Coyote Gulch test did not measure up
even to these low expectations and was 31.6 times slower
than C++, using CMUCL 18d as a Lisp compiler and Intel C++
7.1 (with -O3 -xW optimization switches) as a C++ compiler
on Pentium IV. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 2: No one but a small clique of fanatics likes it No matter how odd or perverted the cause, there will be
followers. In fact, the odder the cause, the fewer, but
more fervent its followers are. Look at any religious cult,
like Scientology, or take a peek in comp.lang.lisp and
listen to Lisp zealots talk about 'making sacrifices for
the cause' (in all seriousness!). Look up "a public
apology" thread started by Pascal Costanza as an excellent
example. ZEALOTS STOP AT NOTHING TO ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE, AND
PERSONALLY ATTACKING ANYONE WITH A DISSENTING OPTINION IS
THE FIRST THING IN THEIR ARSENAL. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 3: The vast majority of people who study Lisp in
school, never want to use it again. You should already know this if you studied or taught CS
where Lisp courses were offered. Even those students who
are fond of Scheme are usually disgusted by Lisp. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 4: Lisp is the most complicated language in the world It has the biggest standard specification document, which
is also the most obfuscated one - something a lawyer
pretending to be a programmer could have written. C, C++
and Fortran 95 specs are much better written, by people who
can communicate directly and eloquently. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 5: Despite its size, Lisp does not define threads or
GUI. Large libraries are very useful when programming, however
Lisp's many functions and macros hardly qualify. --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 6: There is no open-source cross-platform native-code
compiler It was suggested that GCL (GNU Common Lisp) is the only
exception. However, it needs to be noted, that despite its
name, GCL is a dialect of its own, is quite slow even by
Lisp standards, and most alarmingly, unlike with other
compilers, its license requires your, programmer, code to
be GPL if you distribute it with GCL. (Because you will
need to use GCL both as a compiler and a run time library) --------------------------------------------------------- FACT 7: There is no standard C interface. C has become a lingua franca for interlanguage APIs. It may
be unfair, but not having a standard C interface is a
serious problem for any language.
EPILOGUE: I do not hate Lisp, and I think it was a fine tool decades
ago, and I am not going to say "Lisp sucks". However, now
that we have superior languages for coding close to the
iron, high-performance computing, number crunching,
algorithms, scripting and gluing components together, Lisp
should be finally retired.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

(blank lines added below to keep my newsreader happy)

[Thomas Weidenfeller]

nobody wrote:

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.

You should be shot on sight for posting advocacy to a bunch of
non-advocacy groups. "Thanks" for polluting the groups with yet another
programming language war.

F'up set.

/Thomas

[Joe Marshall]

no****************@yahoo.com (nobody) writes:

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.
Did he ask you to post this article in these newsgroups?

comp.lang.c++
comp.lang.java.programmer
comp.lang.scheme
comp.lang.c
comp.lang.python

Why did you not post it comp.lang.lisp where it would be at least
relevant?
Due to time constraints, I will refrain from posting any
follow-ups here.
If you do not intend to engage in convesation, why are you posting it?
This article is a collection of facts anyone interested in
Lisp should know about.
Is there some reason anyone should take `nobody' at yahoo seriously?
Look up "a public apology" thread started by Pascal Costanza as an
excellent example.
What does such a personal matter have to do with the language?
I do not hate Lisp, and I think it was a fine tool decades
ago, and I am not going to say "Lisp sucks". However, now
that we have superior languages for coding close to the
iron, high-performance computing, number crunching,
algorithms, scripting and gluing components together, Lisp
should be finally retired.

You clearly have some sort of axe to grind. If you don't like Lisp,
don't use it.

To others, if you are unfamiliar with Lisp you are welcome to read a
rebuttal in comp.lang.lisp

Please direct all followups to comp.lang.lisp

[Ray Dillinger]

nobody wrote:

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.

The solution to your problem is obvious. Just treat Lisp like
Chocolate; if you don't like it, you can't have any.

Followups set.

Bear

[Guillaume]

I don't know what this post has to do with comp.lang.c, but whatever.

This was pretty funny nonetheless.

As for me, I would say practically the same things about Java. :-p

[Kaz Kylheku]

no****************@yahoo.com (nobody) wrote in message news:<16**************************@posting.google. com>...

FACT 2: No one but a small clique of fanatics likes it

No matter how odd or perverted the cause, there will be
followers. In fact, the odder the cause, the fewer, but
more fervent its followers are.

But nobody is more fervent than lunatics whose membership applications
were *rejected* by imaginary little fanatic cliques. Their cause, in
fact, usually has just one follower.

[Martin Ambuhl]

nobody wrote:

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.

I fail to see why anyone should give a rat's ass about what someone
hiding behind "no****************@yahoo.com (nobody)" has to say about
anything. "Nobody"'s opinions about LISP, C, or the color of bananas is
completely worthless. When you have the cajones to stand behind your
opinions, you might be paid attention to.

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Something that calls itself nobody wrote:

[snip]

This is an obvious troll. Please ignore it.

[Dale King]

"Matthias Felleisen" <ma******@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:c2**********@camelot.ccs.neu.edu...

nobody wrote:

Lisp has been declared dead for the past N years. Unlike Algol, Simula 67, PL/I, Pascal, ... and many more languages that came and went, it is still alife and kicking.

I really am not getting into the debate over lisp, but the notion that those
other languages are dead is not correct. I'm not sure there is a successful
language invented that has ever truly died. Interest in Simula for example
keeps growing. There is an annual conference for Simula and the attendance
grows every year.

I would bet that there is somebody somewhere still programming in ENIAC
assembly language.

Feel free to name a language that you think is dead and someone will tell
you someplace that it is still in active use.

--
Dale King

[Jorge Rivera]

>

As for me, I would say practically the same things about Java. :-p

Wow, you are comparing a fairly useless language (Lisp) with a powerful
and flexible languange (Java), and would come up with the same arguments
as to why it sucks?

Not that I really care, it is just interesting how your preconceived
notions of Java blind you...

[Greg Ewing (using news.cis.dfn.de)]

Dale King wrote:

I would bet that there is somebody somewhere still programming in ENIAC
assembly language.

Did ENIAC *have* an assembler? I thought it was programmed
with a patch panel.

(The word "patch" meant something quite different in those
days...)

--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg

[Jon A. Cruz]

Jorge Rivera wrote:

As for me, I would say practically the same things about Java. :-p

Wow, you are comparing a fairly useless language (Lisp) with a powerful
and flexible languange (Java), and would come up with the same arguments
as to why it sucks?

Well, I happen to use that "fairly useless" language daily in working
with Java.

:-)

http://jdee.sunsite.dk/

(Sorry, guys. Couldn't resist)

[David Shaw]

The real question is as to why *Python* isn't your favorite programming language!
- David
// http://david.artoo.net/

[Joe Marshall]

"Dale King" <kingd[at]tmicha[dot]net> writes:

Feel free to name a language that you think is dead and someone will tell
you someplace that it is still in active use.

Focal
FX
Lakota
REBOL 1.x

[Mike Nishizawa]

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT." If
you hold that 1 language is better than all other languages, then you
ARE ignorant. LISP is a parsing language. It's obviously not made to
do the same things that C is. LISP is extremely fast for processing
data files.

C in not an end-all be-all of programming languages, even though it is
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Really these discussions boil down to the programmer him/herself, who
is usually the one at fault for poor performance. I'm not quite sure
when this happened, but at some point programmers started relying on
hardware for fast, efficient software and from that point on, the
quality and emphasis placed on writing efficient programs has
diminished. If you want your code to run faster, make it more
efficient... make it use less resources... and use the right language
for the job. Don't try to fit all things under one umbrella because
that language has not been developed yet.


Guillaume <gr*******@NO-SPAMmail.com> wrote in message news:<40**********************@news.club-internet.fr>...

I don't know what this post has to do with comp.lang.c, but whatever.

This was pretty funny nonetheless.

As for me, I would say practically the same things about Java. :-p

[Guillaume]

> Well, I happen to use that "fairly useless" language daily in working

with Java.

Hehe, nice. ;-)

[Jacek Generowicz]

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) writes:

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT."
He then goes on to say.
LISP is a parsing language.

Thereby creating a self referential articrle.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Mike Nishizawa wrote:

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT." If
you hold that 1 language is better than all other languages, then you
ARE ignorant. LISP is a parsing language. It's obviously not made to
do the same things that C is. LISP is extremely fast for processing
data files.

C in not an end-all be-all of programming languages, even though it is
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Really these discussions boil down to the programmer him/herself, who
is usually the one at fault for poor performance. I'm not quite sure
when this happened, but at some point programmers started relying on
hardware for fast, efficient software and from that point on, the
quality and emphasis placed on writing efficient programs has
diminished. If you want your code to run faster, make it more
efficient... make it use less resources... and use the right language
for the job. Don't try to fit all things under one umbrella because
that language has not been developed yet.

http://www.tundraware.com/Technology...ming-Language/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tu****@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

[goose]

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) wrote in message news:<d7**************************@posting.google. com>...

please dont top-post.
tia.

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT."
So is the post I am now responding to!

At the risk of offending you, are you sure that your last 3 years
as a programmer have properly equipped you to make informed
decisions like the ones you've made below?

<snipped>
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Pick a fairly simple application ... lets say a tic-tac-toe
game. Are you certain that the game implemented in java will
run on more platforms than the same game implemented in ANSI
C?

C has many many weaknesses; platform dependence is /not/ one of
them.

<snipped stuff I am in agreement with>

goose,

[Ray Dillinger]

nobody wrote:

This article is posted at the request of C.W. Yang who
asked me to detail my opinion of Lisp, and for the benefit
of people like him, who may find themselves intrigued by
this language.

The solution to your problem is obvious. Just treat Lisp like
Chocolate; if you don't like it, you can't have any.

Followups set.

Bear

[Michael Borgwardt]

goose wrote:

quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Pick a fairly simple application ... lets say a tic-tac-toe
game. Are you certain that the game implemented in java will
run on more platforms than the same game implemented in ANSI
C?

Absolutely certain if it uses a GUI. Otherwise, it depends very much
on the C programmer, whereas even the most incompetent Java programmer
will find it hard to casually insert a platform dependance.

C has many many weaknesses; platform dependence is /not/ one of
them.

Like *hell* it isn't!

- sizes of basic types differ between platforms and compilers
- newly allocated memory may or may not be zeroed
- sctructs may or may not be padded, variables may or may
not need to be aligned
- etc.

Yes, you can work around all of them, but it takes an active effort. There's
a reason why it's now common practice to buld C applications with GNU
autoconf, making the build a *three*-level process (counting pre-processor,
compilation and linking together as only one). And it still often fails
with cryptic error messages.

[Yuri Schaeffer]

I goofed!

I'm trying to write a news server and did some test with a random header
I found in this group. But I forgot to set newsgroups to a test group...
So the above is not a repost, just my garbage. It also was a crosspost,
that does make me realy bad doesn't it? ;)
(sorry)

yuri

[Mike Nishizawa]

mi************@yahoo.com (Minti) wrote in message news:<e8**************************@posting.google. com>...

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) wrote in message news:<d7**************************@posting.google. com>...

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT." If
you hold that 1 language is better than all other languages, then you
ARE ignorant. LISP is a parsing language. It's obviously not made to
do the same things that C is. LISP is extremely fast for processing
data files.

C in not an end-all be-all of programming languages, even though it is
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Really these discussions boil down to the programmer him/herself, who
is usually the one at fault for poor performance. I'm not quite sure
when this happened, but at some point programmers started relying on
hardware for fast, efficient software and from that point on, the
quality and emphasis placed on writing efficient programs has
diminished. If you want your code to run faster, make it more
efficient... make it use less resources... and use the right language
for the job. Don't try to fit all things under one umbrella because
that language has not been developed yet.

Quite valid arguments. However I have one question to ask, I am quite
naive with LISP { just couple of weekends ) but I think the OP did
raise some doubts in my mind. I mean to me LISP looks right now to be
just OK. Some people said that with all the () it is difficult to code
in but I think that with proper indentation that is absolutely
ludicurous. However when some one says that the code might be 31.?
times slower as compared to C, kinda of scares me. Could assert such
figures. I know speed is not the one and only goal but just wondering
if these figures are correct.
Thanks

I would ask what the C program is doing. If it beats LISP at it's own
game which is, list processing, then that would be different. I don't
think I would choose to write an enterprise application in it, but I
think it's as good a choice as anything for any type of parsing
applications. And to the smart guy who feels like he can take a stab
at me for calling lisp a parsing language... consider: a parser is,
by definition, something that analyzes or separates (input, for
example) into more easily processed components. Let's take a
document, for instance. If I wanted to parse the document and
separate it into words, I would write a parser to do so. What is a
document but a list of words separated by spaces... an especially good
application for a LISt Processing language.

[Mike Nishizawa]

mi************@yahoo.com (Minti) wrote in message news:<e8**************************@posting.google. com>...

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) wrote in message news:<d7**************************@posting.google. com>...

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT." If
you hold that 1 language is better than all other languages, then you
ARE ignorant. LISP is a parsing language. It's obviously not made to
do the same things that C is. LISP is extremely fast for processing
data files.

C in not an end-all be-all of programming languages, even though it is
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Really these discussions boil down to the programmer him/herself, who
is usually the one at fault for poor performance. I'm not quite sure
when this happened, but at some point programmers started relying on
hardware for fast, efficient software and from that point on, the
quality and emphasis placed on writing efficient programs has
diminished. If you want your code to run faster, make it more
efficient... make it use less resources... and use the right language
for the job. Don't try to fit all things under one umbrella because
that language has not been developed yet.

Quite valid arguments. However I have one question to ask, I am quite
naive with LISP { just couple of weekends ) but I think the OP did
raise some doubts in my mind. I mean to me LISP looks right now to be
just OK. Some people said that with all the () it is difficult to code
in but I think that with proper indentation that is absolutely
ludicurous. However when some one says that the code might be 31.?
times slower as compared to C, kinda of scares me. Could assert such
figures. I know speed is not the one and only goal but just wondering
if these figures are correct.
Thanks

I would ask what the C program is doing. If it beats LISP at it's own
game which is, list processing, then that would be different. I don't
think I would choose to write an enterprise application in it, but I
think it's as good a choice as anything for any type of parsing
applications. And to the smart guy who feels like he can take a stab
at me for calling lisp a parsing language... consider: a parser is,
by definition, something that analyzes or separates (input, for
example) into more easily processed components. Let's take a
document, for instance. If I wanted to parse the document and
separate it into words, I would write a parser to do so. What is a
document but a list of words separated by spaces... an especially good
application for a LISt Processing language.

[Jacek Generowicz]

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) writes:

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing, an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

[Jacek Generowicz]

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) writes:

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing, an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

[Mike Nishizawa]

mi************@yahoo.com (Minti) wrote in message news:<e8**************************@posting.google. com>...

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) wrote in message news:<d7**************************@posting.google. com>...

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT." If
you hold that 1 language is better than all other languages, then you
ARE ignorant. LISP is a parsing language. It's obviously not made to
do the same things that C is. LISP is extremely fast for processing
data files.

C in not an end-all be-all of programming languages, even though it is
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Really these discussions boil down to the programmer him/herself, who
is usually the one at fault for poor performance. I'm not quite sure
when this happened, but at some point programmers started relying on
hardware for fast, efficient software and from that point on, the
quality and emphasis placed on writing efficient programs has
diminished. If you want your code to run faster, make it more
efficient... make it use less resources... and use the right language
for the job. Don't try to fit all things under one umbrella because
that language has not been developed yet.

Quite valid arguments. However I have one question to ask, I am quite
naive with LISP { just couple of weekends ) but I think the OP did
raise some doubts in my mind. I mean to me LISP looks right now to be
just OK. Some people said that with all the () it is difficult to code
in but I think that with proper indentation that is absolutely
ludicurous. However when some one says that the code might be 31.?
times slower as compared to C, kinda of scares me. Could assert such
figures. I know speed is not the one and only goal but just wondering
if these figures are correct.
Thanks

I would ask what the C program is doing. If it beats LISP at it's own
game which is, list processing, then that would be different. I don't
think I would choose to write an enterprise application in it, but I
think it's as good a choice as anything for any type of parsing
applications. And to the smart guy who feels like he can take a stab
at me for calling lisp a parsing language... consider: a parser is,
by definition, something that analyzes or separates (input, for
example) into more easily processed components. Let's take a
document, for instance. If I wanted to parse the document and
separate it into words, I would write a parser to do so. What is a
document but a list of words separated by spaces... an especially good
application for a LISt Processing language.

[Mike Nishizawa]

mi************@yahoo.com (Minti) wrote in message news:<e8**************************@posting.google. com>...

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) wrote in message news:<d7**************************@posting.google. com>...

These posts are like big huge neon signs that say, "I'm IGNORANT." If
you hold that 1 language is better than all other languages, then you
ARE ignorant. LISP is a parsing language. It's obviously not made to
do the same things that C is. LISP is extremely fast for processing
data files.

C in not an end-all be-all of programming languages, even though it is
quite robust. For instance, C is great if you are going to develop
software for 1 platform. However, if you are developing software for
multiple platforms, Java is a better choice.

Really these discussions boil down to the programmer him/herself, who
is usually the one at fault for poor performance. I'm not quite sure
when this happened, but at some point programmers started relying on
hardware for fast, efficient software and from that point on, the
quality and emphasis placed on writing efficient programs has
diminished. If you want your code to run faster, make it more
efficient... make it use less resources... and use the right language
for the job. Don't try to fit all things under one umbrella because
that language has not been developed yet.

Quite valid arguments. However I have one question to ask, I am quite
naive with LISP { just couple of weekends ) but I think the OP did
raise some doubts in my mind. I mean to me LISP looks right now to be
just OK. Some people said that with all the () it is difficult to code
in but I think that with proper indentation that is absolutely
ludicurous. However when some one says that the code might be 31.?
times slower as compared to C, kinda of scares me. Could assert such
figures. I know speed is not the one and only goal but just wondering
if these figures are correct.
Thanks

I would ask what the C program is doing. If it beats LISP at it's own
game which is, list processing, then that would be different. I don't
think I would choose to write an enterprise application in it, but I
think it's as good a choice as anything for any type of parsing
applications. And to the smart guy who feels like he can take a stab
at me for calling lisp a parsing language... consider: a parser is,
by definition, something that analyzes or separates (input, for
example) into more easily processed components. Let's take a
document, for instance. If I wanted to parse the document and
separate it into words, I would write a parser to do so. What is a
document but a list of words separated by spaces... an especially good
application for a LISt Processing language.

[Jacek Generowicz]

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) writes:

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing, an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

[Jacek Generowicz]

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) writes:

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing, an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

[Mike Nishizawa]

Jacek Generowicz <ja**************@cern.ch> wrote in message news:<ty*************@pcepsft001.cern.ch>...

ni****@netzero.net (Mike Nishizawa) writes:

If it beats LISP at it's own game which is, list processing,

an especially good application for a LISt Processing language.

[lots more uninformed garbage elided]

Please get a clue about what Lisp is in the 21st century (hell, even
what it was in the last 2 decades of the 20th century), before posting
any more of your drivel.

For example, you could look at http://franz.com/success/ for a little
insight into what is being done (mereyly by processing lists and
parsing files, according to your view of the world) in Lisp today.

2 words pal, settle down. If you weren't such a fanatic you would
realize that we are not not saying anything that different. I have
simply used a different, more simple example. I learned AI
development with LISP. I have used it in web applications in the
past. I realize that it is used for more advanced applications and I
am not limiting the functionality of it to a parser. I am saying that
it's native functionality is list processing and had to defend my
earlier position that it makes it good for parsing files because you
seem to want to zealously attack me if I don't present LISP in it's
greatest possible light.

The original point of the post was simply to say one language is the
best for all applications is stupid. If you plan to develop
something, choose the language that it is most suited to solving the
problem instead of trying to say that EVERYTHING from drivers to
enterprise applications should be developed in one language. If I had
known you were out there ready to pounce on anyone who might give a
simple example of LISP and therefore, in your opinion, simplify the
language or what it can do, I would have said AI instead of parser and
saved myself the trouble of being persecuted by a zealot.