Re: What is a lightweight language

[address@hidden (Jeremy Hylton)]

>>>>> "JM" == jmarshall  <jmarshall@mak.com> writes:

  JM> Now I freely admit that the Lisp as it came out of the box was
  JM> not up to the task, but it really wasn't that difficult a task
  JM> to add the necessary functionality.  Once that was in place, we
  JM> could perform very complex build steps quite easily.

  JM> [End of anecdote]

  JM> I've come to the conclusion that Lisp isn't so much a quadruple
  JM> amputee as it is an untrained temp worker.  It sure doesn't know
  JM> squat to start with, but with a little effort you can extend it
  JM> to be as powerful as you need.

Your anecdote reinforces Paul's point, I think.  If you have a large
project where the effort involved to "add the necessary functionality"
is small relative to the total effort, Lisp can be a win.  If you have
a lightweight programming task, adding the "necessary functionality"
will be more expensive than actually writing the application.

Jeremy