Dynamic languages are the future
Wed Aug 30 07:40:43 CEST 2006
Jay Nelson wrote:
> Hmm, my recollection was building commercial apps in Common Lisp and
> CLOS, not Scheme. I have yet to meet any language as powerful and
> would take it back -- well, I think I like what erlang has to offer
> better, but only because I've already done Lisp and my needs are
> different now.
> Lisp gave you the power to do whatever you needed to do. You could
> avoid the power or you could use it. The language didn't try to
> protect you from making mistakes, it just gave you the choice to use
> the power. It was not a horrible flaw that enabled that approach.
I wonder why Erlang is not Lisp? I mean why inventors of Erlang chose to
create its own language instead of creating just ERTS-specific library
for LISP (or at least Scheme)?
More information about the erlang-questions