Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!wlbr!news.cerf.net!netlabs!lwall
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Why is Lisp inactive compared to Perl et al?
Message-ID: <1995May9.001053.24102@netlabs.com>
Organization: NetLabs, Inc., Los Altos, California.
References: <517cb$d2920.d3@cat.bbsr.edu> <PHILG.95May8000723@camelot.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 00:10:53 GMT
Lines: 39

In article <PHILG.95May8000723@camelot.ai.mit.edu>,
Philip Greenspun <philg@mit.edu> wrote:
: This is partly because
: 
: 1) more novice programmers attempt to use "scripting languages" such
: as Perl and TCL than real programming languages

Okay, there's gotta be a reason for that.  I'd suggest the explanation
is going to be more psychological than mathematical.

: 2) even professional programmers are often unable to write correct
: Perl and TCL programs (I've tried Perl and found that I can only work
: by modifying examples; I haven't tried TCL but people here at MIT say
: that it is far worse than Perl).

This mostly just proves what we already know:  Programmers are almost as
good at reading documentation as they are at writing it.

Or are you suggesting that Lisp needs no documentation?

:     Regrettably, I suspect the latter and wonder what can be done to renew
:     interest in Lisp.
: 
: Nothing.  Programmers are so cheap now for big corporations that your
: question is just like asking "what can be done to improve the tools
: given to janitors?"

Precisely.  Janitors are not usually considered to be members of the elite.
Especially by the elite.

: The only thing that might renew interest in modern computer languages
: (e.g., Lisp, ML, Ada) is a big pile of lawsuits by users of unreliable
: software directed against vendors of unreliable software (e.g.,
: Microshaft, Apple).

So sue us.  :-)

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
