It takes nothing away from LISP or its originators to identify its flaws, in hindsight. LISP is not only fifty years old, it is based on a design never meant to be implemented! How much was understood, back then, about software engineering? Clearly the only fault is in those who have failed to learn from the mistakes, over and over again. Over the decades since, academic toy languages have incorporated many important ideas that ought to be more readily available to engineers, but are too often tangled up with those fifty-year-old mistakes. The Boost crew deserve Turing awards for teasing out many of the good ideas and putting them into a useful library.
The lack of a credible industrial alternative to C++ isn't just bad luck. It is incontrovertible proof of systematic failure, over decades, by those responsible for evaluating language designs.
By the way, the expressions "low-level" and "high-level", in my experience, are readily abused to prejudice discussion. Most usually this means disparaging concerns for performance and trying to distract the reader from fundamental inefficiencies. I'm not accusing Mr. Vogt of such usage. Rather, I'm pointing out that the words have acquired very slippery meanings, so that their use often obscures more than it reveals.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds