Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!rzsun2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de!bosun2!weigele From: weigele@bosun2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Martin Weigele) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: So who's really using LISP? Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 91 08:31:16 GMT References: <1227@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> Sender: news@informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Mr. News) Distribution: comp Organization: University of Hamburg, FRG Lines: 33 ajs@prg.ox.ac.uk (Adolfo Socorro) writes: >At Oxford and SRI International, we use AKCL for the development of the OBJ >family of languages and systems. [Hi Adolfo -] I think the crucial question about programming languages is the way of thinking and the attitude towards programming problems they encourage. Historically, lisp was the language of choice for the AI people because of its at that time exceptional abilities of symbol manipulation and list processing. As a least common denominator, Common Lisp was then created to be as compatible as possible with the existing lisp families. Nowadays, I think that Common Lisp has become a dinosaur because of the incredibly many features built in - also known as "creeping featurism" - as a result of the desire to be as compatible as possible. Languages like scheme seem much "cleaner" and "nicer". But even scheme lacks the kind of type support available in the modula/pascal/oberon language family, or in languages like ML. On the other hand, the widespread use of Common Lisp in the AI community and the fact that with some programming self-discipline, you can write decent and powerful programmes might still justify its use. Also, the more specification languages are really used in programming projects, perhaps the less important the features of the programming languages at least at the stage of system analysis, and the less incentive from throwing away the built-up know-how of an existing programming language. Martin Weigele FB Informatik, Uni Hamburg, Germany