Subject: Re: Why learn Lisp
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 26 Aug 2002 05:28:36 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <>

* Charlton Wilbur
| And even then, designing a new language does not necessarily mean rejecting
| all that has gone before.

  After you know what has gone before, you can be more intelligently creative
  than when you start out from scratch.

| Did Bertrand Meyer discard what he had learned from other languages when he
| designed Eiffel?  Did Bjarne Stroustrup discard what he had learned from
| other languages when he started down the path that led to C++?  Did
| Kernighan, Ritchie, and Thompson discard what they had learned when they
| created C?  Of course not.

  Of course not.  Were they 18-year-old whining loners who craved attention
  for their inventions created in a vacuum?  Of course not.  Do you know
  anything worth beans to anyone else when you are 18?  Of course not.

| Still, it's hardly surprising that comp.lang.lisp doesn't care.

  So far, the willingness to listen does not even extend to Paul Graham's Arc.
  Novices with a desire to reinvent the world before they know what it is like
  should take notice of this.  Improving on Common Lisp is /very/ hard.  And
  most of the "improvements" on Scheme are neither improvements nor Scheme.

Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.