Subject: Re: Lisp in Python From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 25 Sep 2002 22:06:39 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Basile STARYNKEVITCH | I believe that RMS talked about the CommonLisp language specification, which | is indeed a big stuff. This is such an idiotic line. | And CommonLisp requires not only the core language but also a very rich | standard library. It also requires learning a significant amount of computer science. Every useful programming language in this century has a large standard library of functions, types, and other supporting technology. Programming languages that have yet to be brought into the 3rd millennium look smaller only because their non-standard libraries are much, much larger than standard libraries of any modern programming language. | Learning CommonLisp is a very significant task! More utter nonsense! It takes significantly /less/ time to master Common Lisp than to master C++ or Java or even Perl or Python. Programming under Windows requires about two orders of magnitude more stuff to learn than the language. If all you can do is repeat nonsense you may believe but you have not thought about, consider yielding to people who at least spout /original/ nonsense. (On the off chance that your typographical novelty is semantically relevant, you should notice that other people write "Common Lisp" and make your claims about that other language called "CommonLisp" stand out more from what people might think it means.) -- 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.