Re: OT: Programming Languages (Was: Spell Checking for Non European Languages, and for Conlangs)
|Date:||Thursday, April 15, 2004, 21:38|
Chris Palmer scripsit:
> Lisp code *is* a literal tree (parentheses demarcate subtrees); a Lisp
> program is a huge tree of expressions.
All practical Lisp programs are broken down into separate trees, where
each tree is no larger than a function in any other programming language,
and often smaller.
> Also, given that real-world computers are
> machines that execute flat lists of instructions, the "impedance
> mismatch" between how Lisp structures code and how the machine works
> results in Lisp code being orders of magnitude slower than code written
> in a language that more closely reflects the way the machine works.
> Lisp people: please flame me off-list, if you have to flame me. ;)
I won't flame, I'll simply post pointers to the refutation of this:
And here's a pointer to the virtues of Lisp:
John Cowan email@example.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
Any sufficiently-complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc,
informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
--Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming (rules 1-9 are unknown)