 |
| The Lisp Curse (2011) (winestockwebdesign.com) | ||
| recommended by 1 user | 2016 | 194 points by jlturner | lisp | original thread | | ||
| One user recommended this thread. What they said: |
| nickpsecurity Feb 29, 2016 | on: LambdaNative | context |
| Also recommended by people who recommended this: | ||
| 1. | Yosefk - My history with Forth & stack machines (yosefk.com) | |
| recommended by 2 users | 2010 | 147 points by astrange | original thread | | ||
| 2. | Creating a language using only assembly language (speakerdeck.com) | |
| recommended by 2 users | 2015 | 347 points by nineties | original thread | | ||
| 3. | They Used To Last 50 Years (recraigslist.com) | |
| recommended by 2 users | 2017 | 1359 points by teslacar | original thread | | ||
Not true: LISP would've benefited greatly from at least one core usage and set of libraries that were easy-to-use with lots of uptake. Call it the Python effect. How it's been used and expanded is quite amazing. LISP could've done more but wasn't restrained enough by community. The reasons for this are social, not technical. Probably best explained here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11174946
Meanwhile, languages like Ocaml, Haskell, and Python pick up the ball by trying to include plenty of power but in constrained and standardized ways that benefit from communities. Results are paying off. There's a few LISP's that do the same thing with better results than prior LISP's. Hopefully, those will keep getting uptake as I think powerful and constrained languages each have something to offer. Best to develop both in parallel, esp as one can implement the other. ;)