Choosing a programming language as a competitive tool

[Fernando Rodríguez]

On Wed, 02 May 2001 14:48:42 GMT, Courageous <jkraska1 at san.rr.com> wrote:

>On 02 May 2001 10:44:04 -0400, Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin at mems-exchange.org> wrote:
>

>
>Not really, no. Not only is it difficult to find Lisp programmers, it's hard
>to train them, and even harder to make them good Lisp programmers.
>Add to this mix that there's little out there in terms of third party (pay or
>free) library support, and you have a really sour recipe. In my experience,
>if you're going the Lisp route, you need mavericks.
>
>Python, however, is different. 

	Nonsense. Python and lisp are quite similar, and Pyhton owes most of
it's "coolness" to lisp.  The only thing remotely difficult in both languages
is optimization (since so much happens under the hood).  This happens to any
high level language.

	At least, you don't struggle for months (or years) to get your app
working, only a few days to optimize it.

	In my experience, using a good lisp compiler you can have a running
app (with a performance equivalent to C++) when the C++ programmer is still
declaring variables.

	Common Lisp is a useful tool for the Python programmer when you need
more power or speed. I use both.






//-----------------------------------------------
//	Fernando Rodriguez Romero
//
//	frr at mindless dot com
//------------------------------------------------