is lisp better than php?

[gavino]

why?

[Erwin Moller]

gavino wrote:

why?

42

[Jerry Stuckle]

gavino wrote:

why?

Are apples better than oranges?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Marcin Dobrucki]

gavino wrote:

why?

Ofcourse Lisp is better. It has much more standardized use of
parentiesis. In lisp you only need (), but in PHP you have to make an
educated guess between () and {} and [], and sometimes even that's not
enough ;-)

/marcin

[Dylan Parry]

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Are apples better than oranges?

Yes, most definitely! Why? Because I don't like oranges ;)

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

[Lewis Perin]

Marcin Dobrucki <Ma*************@TAKETHISAWAY.nokia.comwrites:

gavino wrote:

why?

Ofcourse Lisp is better. It has much more standardized use of
parentiesis. In lisp you only need (), but in PHP you have to make an
educated guess between () and {} and [], and sometimes even that's not
enough ;-)

That last parenthesis was nonstandard.

/Lew
---
Lew Perin / pe***@acm.org
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

[gavino]

you guys like big gay guys behind you?

[ctnd]

That last parenthesis was nonstandard.

Chuckle.

[Buddy]

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...
ctnd wrote:

That last parenthesis was nonstandard.

Chuckle.

[Moot]

Buddy wrote:

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

Not better. Just different, and meant for different purposes.

You should try programming in something other than the procedural
paradigm sometime. Try LISP (functional paradigm) or Prolog (logical
paradigm). It'll really stretch your mind.

Languages like LISP or Prolog make algorithmically intense concepts in
the artificial intelligence genre a breeze compared to implementing
them procedurally.

[Tim Streater]

In article <11*********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups. com>,
"Moot" <mo*******************@yahoo.comwrote:

Buddy wrote:

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

Not better. Just different, and meant for different purposes.

You should try programming in something other than the procedural
paradigm sometime. Try LISP (functional paradigm) or Prolog (logical
paradigm). It'll really stretch your mind.

Er, no thanks. I tried it in 1968 - once was enough.

Languages like LISP or Prolog make algorithmically intense concepts in
the artificial intelligence genre a breeze compared to implementing
them procedurally.

-- tim

[Marcin Dobrucki]

Buddy wrote:

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

nononono! lisp is better, and you can have objects in lisp as well
(common lisp object system).

BTW, the strangest thing: I swear I just saw a flying pig swoosh by
the window. ;-) But I am sure it has nothing to do with this discussion.

/marcin

[gavino]

Moot wrote:

Buddy wrote:

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

Not better. Just different, and meant for different purposes.

You should try programming in something other than the procedural
paradigm sometime. Try LISP (functional paradigm) or Prolog (logical
paradigm). It'll really stretch your mind.

Languages like LISP or Prolog make algorithmically intense concepts in
the artificial intelligence genre a breeze compared to implementing
them procedurally.

can lisp be used for building websites that are large and complicated
and in the end be good to maintain?

[Marcin Dobrucki]

gavino wrote:

can lisp be used for building websites that are large and complicated
and in the end be good to maintain?

As surprising and radical a thinking as might be, there are other
purposes for programming languages than making dynamic webpages. Can
you drive down a highway in your in a speedboat? I think not.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Marcin Dobrucki wrote:

gavino wrote:

>can lisp be used for building websites that are large and complicated
and in the end be good to maintain?

As surprising and radical a thinking as might be, there are other
purposes for programming languages than making dynamic webpages. Can
you drive down a highway in your in a speedboat? I think not.

True, and PHP can be used for those things.

His question was - "can lisp be used for building websites that are
large and complicated and in the end be good to maintain?"

If the answer is no, then it could be argued that PHP is better because
it can do things lisp can't.

However, the bottom line is - the original question is meaningless.
It's like asking "is a submarine better than a minivan?" It is if
you're studying the ocean floor.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Buddy]

Whoever asked that question probably didn't know the difference... so I
say LISP is better because whoever they are should probably start
there.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Marcin Dobrucki wrote:

gavino wrote:

can lisp be used for building websites that are large and complicated
and in the end be good to maintain?

As surprising and radical a thinking as might be, there are other
purposes for programming languages than making dynamic webpages. Can
you drive down a highway in your in a speedboat? I think not.

True, and PHP can be used for those things.

His question was - "can lisp be used for building websites that are
large and complicated and in the end be good to maintain?"

If the answer is no, then it could be argued that PHP is better because
it can do things lisp can't.

However, the bottom line is - the original question is meaningless.
It's like asking "is a submarine better than a minivan?" It is if
you're studying the ocean floor.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

Buddy wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>Marcin Dobrucki wrote:

>>>gavino wrote:
can lisp be used for building websites that are large and complicated
and in the end be good to maintain?
As surprising and radical a thinking as might be, there are other
purposes for programming languages than making dynamic webpages. Can
you drive down a highway in your in a speedboat? I think not.

True, and PHP can be used for those things.

His question was - "can lisp be used for building websites that are
large and complicated and in the end be good to maintain?"

If the answer is no, then it could be argued that PHP is better because
it can do things lisp can't.

However, the bottom line is - the original question is meaningless.
It's like asking "is a submarine better than a minivan?" It is if
you're studying the ocean floor.

Whoever asked that question probably didn't know the difference... so I
say LISP is better because whoever they are should probably start
there.

(Top posting fixed)

Again, without a context, there is no "better" language.

It's been a long time since I did any lisp - so long ago that I've
forgotten most of it. But I do think it's a good language. So are PHP,
Java, C, C++, COBOL and dozens of other languages. And each one is
good, in its context. I would use COBOL to write mainframe business
applications. But I wouldn't try to write a web page with it.

P.S. Please don't top post. Thanks.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

[Jeremy]

Buddy wrote:

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

The Joke ----- -=O

O
You ---------- /|\
/¯\

[Allodoxaphobia]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:55:34 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Buddy wrote:

(Top posting fixed)

Again, without a context, there is no "better" language.

Quite true.
But I think the intent of the top poster was to move the TROLL out of
comp.lang.php, and over into comp.lang.lisp.

[gavino]

pig?

paul graham said clisp

joel on software says java python .net or c++

[Erwin Moller]

Tim Streater wrote:

In article <11*********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups. com>,
"Moot" <mo*******************@yahoo.comwrote:

>Buddy wrote:

PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

Not better. Just different, and meant for different purposes.

You should try programming in something other than the procedural
paradigm sometime. Try LISP (functional paradigm) or Prolog (logical
paradigm). It'll really stretch your mind.

Er, no thanks. I tried it in 1968 - once was enough.

Woot! I was only 1 year old then.
Is LISP THAT old?
Or did you stretch your mind for the first time in 1968 in another way?
;-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller

[Tim Streater]

In article <45*********************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Erwin Moller
<si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article <11*********************@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups. com>,
"Moot" <mo*******************@yahoo.comwrote:

Buddy wrote:
PHP is far better... have you ever looked at LISP? It looks like a
nightmare. I like that you have to use {} [] () it makes reading code
way better... classes, functions, arrays, oh my...

Not better. Just different, and meant for different purposes.

You should try programming in something other than the procedural
paradigm sometime. Try LISP (functional paradigm) or Prolog (logical
paradigm). It'll really stretch your mind.

Er, no thanks. I tried it in 1968 - once was enough.

Woot! I was only 1 year old then.
Is LISP THAT old?

I was doing my CompSci postgrad at Imperial College. Lisp, Snobol,
Algol, and 7090 and 360 assembler come to mind.

-- tim