* Ryan, Martin G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-31 03:30]: > "This is a similar problem that Forth and Lisp had." > > How so? Are they multi-paradigmatic leading to a large and > rich selection of syntax and approaches to choose from? Or do > they try to shoe-horn you into a specific approach that suited > some users/problems but is unsuitable to many?
Lisp is more multiparadigmatic than any currently extant language. Forth is bound quite tightly to imperative style, I think (at least I can’t imagine how you’d write functional or declarative programs in it), but doing OO with it is no biggie, at least. None of that has much to do with syntax. > "You see how widely used those are now..." > > In certain problem domains each remains the language of choice. > They weren't aiming to solve as broad a range of problems as > perl does so one shouldn't expect them to have as high a > profile. That is true of Forth, but not Lisp. There’s a reason that Larry calls Lisp the most beautiful language in the world. In fact, Perl 6 is the first effort I am aware of where a language from outside the Lisp family is trying to compete (*and* win) at all the disciplines Lisp is good at. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
