Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
doc:package:why_lisp [2015/05/08 16:47] – gkazhoya | doc:package:why_lisp [2015/05/08 16:53] (current) – gkazhoya | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==== Efficiency concerns ==== | ==== Efficiency concerns ==== | ||
- | In terms of efficiency Lisp is generally faster than many languages, such as Python or Ruby, but, slower than, for example, C++ or Java 6 (based on the benchmarks from http:// | + | In terms of efficiency Lisp is generally faster than many languages, such as Python or Ruby, but, slower than, for example, C++ or Java 6 (based on the benchmarks from http:// |
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
One of the major problems with Lisp is that it is not widely accepted in the computer scientists community. Due to its functional programming nature it is really hard to get into for people that are used to the traditional imperative programming way of thinking. In the recent years though functional programming seems to finally be finding acceptance in the wider masses, so there is a good perspective also for Lisp. | One of the major problems with Lisp is that it is not widely accepted in the computer scientists community. Due to its functional programming nature it is really hard to get into for people that are used to the traditional imperative programming way of thinking. In the recent years though functional programming seems to finally be finding acceptance in the wider masses, so there is a good perspective also for Lisp. | ||
- | Despite the SBCL compiler being an industrial strength product, as a language, Common Lisp was not designed with industry in mind. Its dynamic typing system, loose encapsulation, | + | Despite the SBCL compiler being an industrial strength product, as a language, Common Lisp was not designed with industry in mind. Its dynamic typing system, loose encapsulation, |