Xref: utzoo comp.lang.scheme:1605 comp.lang.lisp:3558
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
From: lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: extension languages can be darn small, yet still powerfull
Message-ID: <1990Aug29.153243.7567@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 90 15:32:43 GMT
References: <9008220403.AA03028@schizo> <1990Aug24.154118.22011@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu> <1990Aug26.205018.18067@cbnewsc.att.com>
Organization: Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
Lines: 51

lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka) writes:

>In article <1990Aug24.154118.22011@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu> lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) writes:
>>My point is that there is nothing special that makes *Lisp* a great
>>extension language.  Some might argue that it is the "simple syntax,"
>>but that same simple syntax is hated by many (myself *not* included).

>Simplicity is nice, but extensibility is the much more important
>virtue of Lisp syntax.  (The two are of course related to some
>degree.) Lisp's other main advantage as an extension language is its
>dynamic typing, which greatly reduces the effort required to make
>small changes to a program's behavior.

But other languages can be as extensible.  In fact, ARexx (Rexx for
the Amiga) is likely the most extensible "extension language" I have
heard of.  If a program has a Rexx-port, it can be used as an
extension to ARexx.  In the Amiga community, it is very common to hear
of people custom-making editor/compiler/hot-key setups with random
editors, compilers, and ARexx.  Languages like shell languages
(including ARexx) are incredibly extensible, because you can use other
programs as language "operators".  Yes, lisp is naturally extensible,
but so are *many* other languages. 

I will agree that lisp's dynamic typing are an important point of its
usefulness.

>I have found that those who "hate" Lisp syntax almost invariably have
>never used a powerful Lisp development environment such as Symbolics
>Genera, or even Harlequin's LispWorks.  Indeed, the "haters" usually
>have never used any Lisp system beyond the 1962-vintage Lisp 1.5 that
>most of us oldsters were introduced to in undergraduate school.

Many of the lisp-haters that I am thinking of used the Xerox InterLisp
workstation environment.  What got many people were the structured
editors.  (I didn't mind these workstations much, aside from the
slowness.)  Many people I have spoken to hate lisp because they are
used to Pascal-like languages.  Some of these people had programmed in
lisp for several months (i.e. a few AI courses in school).

>Opinions formed in ignorance carry little weight with me.

I agree, but many of the lisp-haters I have met have gien lisp a
chance, and found they just didn't like it.  Be careful of assuming
that lisp-haters have formed their opinions out of ignorance.

					.oO Chris Oo.
-- 
Christopher Lishka 608-262-4485  "Dad, don't give in to mob mentality!"
Wisconsin State Lab. of Hygiene                                -- Bart Simpson
   lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu     "I'm not, Son.  I'm jumping on the bandwagon."
   uunet!uwvax!uwslh!lishka                                    -- Homer Simpson