On Wednesday 07 January 2009 11:12:57 Sam Steingold wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 January 2009 09:39:06 Sam Steingold wrote: > >> Bruno Haible wrote: > >>> If gnulib-tool was to be rewritten in another programming language than > >>> shell + sed, what would be the good choices? > >> > >> a popularity contest is not the way to choose a language. > >> > >> and why aren't you even considering lisp? > >> clisp comes with all linux distributions. > >> every decent CS program provides at least some lisp exposure, so it is > >> not completely unfamiliar to most people. > >> things like perl/python/ruby, defined by their unique implementations, > >> enforce the "throwaway code" approach. > > > > lisp interpreters are far from common, and no one does real work in lisp. > > the simple fact that you use the word "interpreter" in the above sentence > betrays your utter ignorance on the subject.
feel better about yourself now ? whether lisp is interpreted or compiled is irrelevant as the result is the same: usable environments are not common. certainly not as common as the other proposed languages (shell/sed/C/C++). i'd believe python to be more common, but obviously there's no way of backing that up in either direction. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
