Subject: Re: Lisp's future From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 28 Jan 2004 09:27:39 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3284270859149049KL2065E@naggum.no> * Erik Naggum > Common Lisp will always be there for programmers who need to work out > the solution while coding and watching the computer work on the data. * Erann Gat > Joel Spolsky says this is (unconditionally) a bad idea. In fact, he said no such thing, so I never fell for the obvious bait. * Gareth McCaughan | This all seems a bit surreal to me, anyway. There's no inconsistency | between using Lisp and writing specs. Precisely. Erann Gat equated what I said with «aimless hacking», and his bait only applies to such a surreal reading of what I wrote. Some things have not changed in a year... | Programs written in Lisp are generally easier to change than programs | written in C++. That doesn't mean you *have* to go changing them all | the time. (It does mean that some of the costs of change are lower, | which means that some of the reasons for writing specs in advance are | weaker, which may or may not be enough to make a suck-it-and-see | approach better than a first-write-your-spec approach in some cases.) | It doesn't mean you *can't* write a spec at the start. All it means | is that when you need to make changes (which you do, even if there's a | detailed spec from the outset and the requirements never change and | the spec was done *really* well) you can make them more easily. How | can that be bad? Very well said. You relieved me completely of commenting on this. -- Erik Naggum | Oslo, Norway 2004-028 Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.