Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 23:57:11 +0100
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
Cc: Sergiy Lozovsky <serge_lozovsky@yahoo.com>, root@chaos.analogic.com,
       Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel stack challenge
Message-ID: <20040406225711.GM31500@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20040406211550.30263.qmail@web40514.mail.yahoo.com> <407332E0.2040809@techsource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <407332E0.2040809@techsource.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1006
Lines: 19

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:44:48PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
> >5. Well known. So there would be people around who
> >already know this language and expectations are clear.
> >And there are books around about this language.
> 
> LISP completely violates this requirement.  While I appreciate the power 
> of LISP for abstraction, list processing, and how it lends itself 
> towards many AI-related tasks, it's not a commonly-used language.

Whether it's commonly-used or not, there's another killer problem with LISP -
it's fragmented worse than even Pascal.  And "which subset and extensions
do we have in $IMPLEMENTATION" is worth "which language are we dealing with".
Worse, actually.  If you want a functional language - at least pick a
well-defined one.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/