Posted Feb 14, 2006 10:29 UTC (Tue) by jschrod
In reply to: Interesting languages
Parent article: Interview with Samantha Kleinberg on CL-GODB, Common Lisp & Bioinformatics
Any language that doesn't take years to master hasn't enough to teach you to be worth picking up in the first place.
Interestingly. I would put it exactly the other way round: Any language that takes years
to master is not only not worth picking up in the first place, it is actually dangerous and should be shunned to the bottom of a dark pit. Needing years to master means that the semantics are too difficult, and thus are error-prone, and this means that it's too easy to make security-related errors.
That said, neither OCaml nor C++ fit the `years to learn' qualifier. (Though I'm tempted to claim that C++ is a dangerous two-sided sword and beginners make things with it that makes me sweat. I would also argue that its semantics are too complex for its own good.) I don't know Haskell from big projects, but it doesn't look so hard to learn either, e.g., no big libraries with common idioms that I've seen. We should not forget that the typical idioms and big or complex libraries take up the most part of the time in learning a new language.
And Common Lisp is definitively in the league of one should learn it, this one language teaches almost all lessons of the last three or four decades.
to post comments)