[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
From: Steve Dekorte <address@hidden>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 18:45:53 -0700
In-reply-to: <200306142150.h5ELoWl09005@orchestra.cs.caltech.edu>
Sender: address@hidden

On Saturday, June 14, 2003, at 02:50 PM, Michael Vanier wrote:
> Everyone believes that their language is the easiest to use.  Easiest 
> to
> learn is an orthogonal issue.  I don't think you'll find many lisp
> programmers who will argue that lisp is the easiest language to learn.

I've run into a bunch that did. At least, they thought that LISP was 
only difficult to learn for people who had already been exposed to a 
different language.

Cheers,
Steve
"Statically typed languages are like American sports cars.
They go fast, but only in a straight line"

Follow-Ups:
- Syntax design as a discipline (was Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?)
  - From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>

References:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@cs.caltech.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Next by Date: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Previous by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Next by thread: Syntax design as a discipline (was Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread