use Perl

• False Analogy Alert! (Score:2)

  by ziggy (25)

  Common Lisp barely has syntax. Where are all the reliable F/OSS cross-platform CL implementations then?

  chromatic, I understand your frustration with jpersson's comparison, but that does not make your false analogy correct.

  If we start with the premise that "sharp objects are cheap and easy to fabricate", it's a huge leap to ask "where are all of the disposable samurai swords [wikipedia.org]?" In fact, there are very many "disposable sharp objects", but we call them "razor blades", "box cutters" and "toothpicks".

  Th
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Aristotle (5147)

    Consider what happens when you add vectors, hashes, macros, MOP, generic functions, and format strings. The only thing the surface syntax simplifies is the Common Lisp reader function, not the entirety of the implementation.

    I think that was exactly chromatic’s point: whether or not the surface syntax is complex is not what makes the entirety of the implementation big and complex. Unlike the Schemes you mention, Perl 6 puts the entirety of the implementation (or nearly) under the syntax umbrella. T
    • Re:False Analogy Alert! (Score:1)

      by slanning (5049) on 2007.09.24 4:10 (#57996) Homepage Journal

      The fact that only perl can parse Perl is not because Perl’s syntax is so quirky that implementing a parser would be painfully difficult. It’s because you cannot parse Perl without executing it.

      So only perl can execute Perl, then? Why is that?

      Reply to This

      Parent

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Aristotle (5147)

        That is because the language is big and quirky in all sorts of ways, obvious and obscure alike – much more so than just the surface syntax itself.

        But we were talking about surface syntax, so that is beside the point.