Subject: Re: [executables] was: why Haskell hasn't replaced CL yet?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/03/05
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Bulent Murtezaoglu <>
| Actaully, this can be remedied reasonably easily using little programs like
| netcat.  (goes by the name 'nc' usually).

  ... which is the little C program that starts up in no time, right?

  if the shells could do their own network connections, there wouldn't be
  any need to start up those little programs.  after all, the shells don't
  run small programs do to filename globbing, anymore, and numerous other
  common tasks have been incorporated into the shells, simply because it
  makes a lot more sense to incorporate them than to run small programs all
  the time, partly because start-up time for even small programs begin to
  matter when you have to do it hundreds of times because everything you
  _do_ is made up a whole school of tiny little programs.

  in case it hasn't become obvious by now: the more people get good at
  writing small programs that run in "barely noticeable time" each, the
  more silly things like start-up time matter to them.  the more they get
  good at these silly things, the less intelligently they design their
  software, and the less likely they are ever to produce software that
  doesn't consist of tiny little fragments of code that never quite work

  when you reinvent serious programming languages in scripting languages,
  which people have been doing in the Unix world for ages, what you get is
  a lot of people who can do useful things in no time, and no people who
  can figure out how to do stuff that obviates the need for tiny hacks or
  at least that curbs their dramatic increase.  the result is a never-
  ending increase in the need for more tiny little programs, which costs
  all parties involved in the processes a lot of money, and which drives up
  the cost of hiring and doing business.  the only people who profit from
  this development are bad programmers.

  I see no reason why Common Lisp should take part in that development.
  instead, we should try to explain to people who think they have to hire
  bad programmers that they don't have to -- they could hire a Common Lisp
  programmer who knows how to change a mass of RUAs into a coherent system
  that it takes far less effort to build and maintain than just to keep the
  old system running.  it's somewhat like the difference between a mass of
  disorganized files and information strewn all over the place and a real
  database system.  and the funny thing is: some people _do_ get the idea.