Emanuel Berg <in...@dataswamp.org> writes:
No, I think the frustration, IIRC, ws because
(1) No one else was enthusiastic about making Elisp better, in
part for its own sake, to make och try to make Emacs a Lisp
powerhouse up there with CL and Clojure (and others); and
To my mind that's a bit like saying make a mouse trap better by
making it more like a bear trap.
By all means make elisp better, but don't compare it to languages
that are used for different things.
(2) even more so, I was frustrated with that boasting,
functional programming is superior (absolutely not true),
Lisp is built-in superior to other languages, Lisps syntax
is an advantage, Lisp programs are short and elegant (yes,
sometimes, before they get too long, e.g. gnus-sum.el [13
239 lines], Lisp programmers have a better mental
understanding of their programs compared to other
programmers and their sorry languages.
Different languages are good for different things. Saying one
language is better than another only makes sense if they are being
used for the same thing, and only in the context of that thing.
I like Lisp, but I wouldn't use it for everything.
Regards,
- Joel
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list
(https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
