Re: 10 problems with Elisp, part 10

[Joel Reicher <joel.reicher@gmail.com>]

Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:

> No, I think the frustration, IIRC, ws because
>
> (1) No one else was enthusiastic about making Elisp better, in 
>     part for its own sake, to make och try to make Emacs a Lisp 
>     powerhouse up there with CL and Clojure (and others); and

To my mind that's a bit like saying make a mouse trap better by 
making it more like a bear trap.

By all means make elisp better, but don't compare it to languages 
that are used for different things.

> (2) even more so, I was frustrated with that boasting, 
>     functional programming is superior (absolutely not true), 
>     Lisp is built-in superior to other languages, Lisps syntax 
>     is an advantage, Lisp programs are short and elegant (yes, 
>     sometimes, before they get too long, e.g. gnus-sum.el [13 
>     239 lines], Lisp programmers have a better mental 
>     understanding of their programs compared to other 
>     programmers and their sorry languages.

Different languages are good for different things. Saying one 
language is better than another only makes sense if they are being 
used for the same thing, and only in the context of that thing.

I like Lisp, but I wouldn't use it for everything.

Regards,

        - Joel

---
via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)