Dynamic languages are the future

Nick Linker xlcr@REDACTED
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)?

Parentheses? :-)

Best regards,

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list