Nothing compares to Lisp there, really. Perl is probably closest of the modern ones. But I talked about those I know.
CL was a favorite when I studied, but has gone the way of my German and French... I don't know it anymore. :-(
Pity it lost out in the market place. Today, CL has too bad library support, afaik.
[Edit: I don't know much about the Perl 6 macro system, but it seems harder to use than CL macros. Hard to make it as neat, for a roughly Algol-like language like Perl.]
>>CLOS, the most powerful OO system in existence
It was more or less copied in Perl's Moose.
I wrote "You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of."
And got the counter example "Java".
Afaik, you don't get language extensions like a new OO system in Java...?
So after comparing with CL for flexibility -- you compare amount of libraries with a system language, with roughly half the development speed (and a lot more pain) compared to scripting languages and Lisp...?
>>You mean the English inspiration shining through.
Oh, please... that was irrelevant bashing.
I take your point re Smalltalk, I've only read about the language.
>Perl is probably closest of the modern ones. But I talked about those I know.
I'm not convinced. :)
>Pity it lost out in the market place.
The games not over yet. Clojure has been coming on strong lately.
>Afaik, you don't get language extensions like a new OO system in Java...?
You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here. Perl probably has Moose because the "OO" it comes with it is awful. Java actually has a pretty workable OO system right out of the box, so no one is willing to go to the trouble to put something even better on when they could just write more code with what they have. I'll give you that modifying the language is easier in perl if you need to.
>So after comparing with CL for flexibility -- you compare amount of libraries with a system language, with roughly half the development speed (and a lot more pain) compared to scripting languages and Lisp...?
The point of that example was purely to counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
>Oh, please... that was irrelevant bashing.
I just get tired of hearing about Larry's supposed linguist credentials. Perl has English behavior and it's amusing to me that a supposed linguist would pick language features that cause the most misunderstandings in real life! Why on earth would I want my programming language to be as prone to misunderstanding as spoken language? That's the exact opposite of what I actually want.
>>You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here.
Perl, as opposed to e.g. Java, has a tradition of being extensible; Moose is not the only example.
Common Lisp wasn't OO in the first silver book either.
>>counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
Not what I wrote; I wrote "The Perl feature is that it is flexible. You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of."
You needed to go to Lisp (which sadly isn't really commercial today) for flexibility -- and Java for libraries. (And as you note -- I'm willing to believe there is more open source for Java, but finding it...?)
Re linguists -- you need to give exact examples of your claims for me to understand what you talk about. Compare with e.g. German, as you claimed there were some difference?
Nothing compares to Lisp there, really. Perl is probably closest of the modern ones. But I talked about those I know.
CL was a favorite when I studied, but has gone the way of my German and French... I don't know it anymore. :-(
Pity it lost out in the market place. Today, CL has too bad library support, afaik.
[Edit: I don't know much about the Perl 6 macro system, but it seems harder to use than CL macros. Hard to make it as neat, for a roughly Algol-like language like Perl.]
>>CLOS, the most powerful OO system in existence
It was more or less copied in Perl's Moose.
I wrote "You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of."
And got the counter example "Java".
Afaik, you don't get language extensions like a new OO system in Java...?
So after comparing with CL for flexibility -- you compare amount of libraries with a system language, with roughly half the development speed (and a lot more pain) compared to scripting languages and Lisp...?
>>You mean the English inspiration shining through.
Oh, please... that was irrelevant bashing.
I take your point re Smalltalk, I've only read about the language.
Edit: Fixed syntax, clarity.