Re: [tlug] Fibonacci and Netflix

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-11-25 16:29 +0000 (Tue), John Fremlin wrote:

> However, I have added one slide with a brief rundown of what Common Lisp
> has.
> ...
> \item Allows
>   \begin{itemize}
>   \item functional
>   \item object orientated
>   \item imperative
>   \end{itemize}
>   programming.

That it "allows" these is not terribly interesting, I think; many
languages out there (Javascript, Ruby and even C are examples) allow all
off these things.

The power of LISP, of course, is not that it merely allows these, but
that it's convenient to use all of these, and use them in broader ways
than in other languages. For example, in LISP,

    * passing around first-class functions is considerably easier than
      in Ruby, in most cases;
    * LISP has CLOS, offering more-or-less equal access to many
      different forms of OO programming, such as prototype-based
      instead of class-based, multi-parameter dispatch, etc.; and
    * LISP makes it easy to build up ones own OO system from scratch
      if one wishes.

> \item Compiles to efficient native code.

That's really more a feature of one or more particular LISP compilers,
not of LISP itself. Still, it's not unimportant; I'm really missing
having a compiler for Ruby right now.

Incidently, this is cross-posted to the TSAC list, which, at the
moment anyway, welcomes on-topic cross-posts. I think that the TLUG
list software has become a little less draconian recently and doesn't
actually go so far as to remove things from the Reply-to header....

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com