jayessay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, there is the issue of whether there even is a "continual > progression", as in "moving up some ladder" towards something > "better", in the context of programming languages. All of that is > pretty fuzzy stuff, and plenty of CogSci work has shown these value > judgements in this context to be less than obvious in any meaning.
It's simply that newer language designs by definition have more of an experience base to build on than older ones, if the designers care to make use of it. ML's designers were quite aware of what it was like to write Lisp code. Lisp (like anything else) has good and bad points, and ML's designers were able to examine these in retrospect and try to improve on them. Are there any Lisp devotees who have done serious development in ML? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
