Re: Lightness vs. Largeness

[Dorai Sitaram <address@hidden>]

I'm not sure, did people decide that Common Lisp is
lightweight -- or at least toward the light end of the
weight spectrum?  

And how about Prolog?  Its spec is not as massive as
Common Lisp, its syntax doesn't overwhelm, no types,
it's easy to say hello to the world, but...  it is
unusual.  Some would say Prolog is a special-purpose
language (and ipso facto out of the running for
lightweightness), but that is not an insider
view. 

BTW, "lightweight" is a peculiarly appropriate
adjective: hats off to Greg or Mike, if it was
indeed one of them that coined the term.  "Weight"
allows for the subjective without being completely
worthless as a descriptor.  It takes into account the
subject's own attraction for the language.  What's
lightweight to David Moon may be crushingly heavy to
mere earthlings.  (Although, unlike in physics,
stronger attraction => lighter weight.) Furthermore,
some languages are truly massive and end up being
universally considered heavyweight, including by their
willing and happy users.

--d