Lisp - exotic taxis

    When, when I was still at university, I had to write small educational assignments in the Lisp language. This language is quite interesting, and differs practically from everything that developers use in their work today ... well, I passed the workshop and, as they say, forgot.
    ... but yesterday, after seeing the post, I allowed myself to indicate to the author that, in my opinion, the problem of Lisp is not in the absence of libraries, and the lack of libraries follows from the problems of Lisp-a itself - very poor readability of the software code that makes it very difficult to develop large programs.

    Not one of the people who likes holiory, but the explosive debate amused me very much =), so I decided to quote specialists on this exotic and big programming gurus.

    Well, with my comments, of course.

    Nothing personal, just funny.

    In Lisp, the main emphasis is on OOP (CLOS - a powerful object system), on the construction of abstractions of various levels, in a powerful base language.

    In my free translation - “They did it, it turned out the plane”

    HTML and Java are very easy to compare. More precisely, you can compare XML and Java. XML encoded the logic of Ant's Java program, which it interprets.

    Not only logic is encoded, but also the soul, patriotism and morality of the Java program!

    On the contrary, the use of Lisp allows this unrealistic complexity, which traditional approaches (the same OOP *) can not cope with.

    Everyone urgently needs to get out of recursion! We can’t cope with complexity!

    You will probably be surprised, but the most common SDK in the world is Emacs.

    And I thought Borland Delphi ... =)

    The possibility of Lisp, which allows you to deal with the complexity of large systems (against which, as practice has already shown, the OOP approach is powerless) is the ability to create multilayer loosely coupled systems through problem-oriented programming (primarily based on macros) ...

    So they did not explain what loosely coupled systems are.

    ... and not tied to the need to fence in the hierarchy of polymorphism classes .

    No comment

    In a nutshell, what I wanted to say: if you do not create hierarchies, then there will be no polymorphism in OOP.

    As ordered by Comrade Captain!

    Loosely coupled systems are not science fiction. Unix is ​​built on this principle (to some extent).

    Just still do not know who they are ...

    polymorphism in OO languages ​​(read C ++, Java) does not exist separately from inheritance ...
    ... If an OO language refuses the concept of inheritance, then it loses polymorphism as well.

    First, first, I lose your polymorphism !!!

    In short, whatever one may say, the whole polymorphism is created by creating new classes.

    In OOP, everything is created by creating new classes =)

    Also popular now: