On 2006-12-16 08:21:59 -0500, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It never occurs to Lisp programmers that Lisp, too, might be a Blub. Of course it does - Thats why we try ocaml and haskell etc. It's just that we don't see the useful features of these languages as being sufficiently useful to compensate for their lack of the ability to easily do syntactic abstractions over a uniform syntax. There's no question that other languages have some features that common lisp does not (and vice versa). Lispers just can't abide being locked into a particular paradigm because a language doesn't have the basic features (macros and uniform syntax) necessary to provide new paradigms for ourselves when needed or wanted. For example, a common lisp with optional static typing on demand would be strictly more expressive than common lisp. But, take say, haskell; haskell's static typing is not optional (you can work around it, but you have to go out of your way to do so); haskell's pure functional semantics are not optional (again, workarounds possible to a limited extent). This requires you to conceive your problem solution (i.e., program) within the framework of a particular paradigm. This lock-in to a particular paradigm, however powerful, is what makes any such language strictly less expressive than one with syntactic abstraction over a uniform syntax. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
