Part of the problem I've always had with the concept of well-roundedness is that I tend to see certain things as absolute positives -- flexibility, for instance -- and other things, such as diversity, as hindrances.
My problems with trying to learn Lisp come in two flavors so far: The bulky and the nonstandardized. I have a very hard time telling myself that something's worth learning if it's going to be significantly different from interpreter to interpreter, version of Scheme this, Guile that...a certain simplicity in one's basic tools appeals to me.
I realize I should learn Lisp. I guess the real question is -- which Lithp thood I learn?
Emacs Lisp!
merlyn on 2004-03-11T18:34:31
I've found Emacs Lisp to be the most practical lisp around, and as lisps go, it's pretty interestingly complete.
ML
ML, particularly
ocaml.
For good performance (esp. memory usage), the compiler needs
static typing. For the programmer, static typing
necessitates type inference. Static typing without type
inference leads to the irritating verbosity of C or Java.
I'd love to see a type-inferenced version of C, actually,
for those programs where ocaml is too high-level -- for
example, kernels.
Lithp?
jbodoni on 2004-03-11T23:34:56
The thunder god went for a ride,
Upon his favorite filly.
"I'm Thor!" he cried.
The horse replied,
"You forgot the thaddle, thilly!"
I'm in town all week. Try the veal.
John
