Live data from Hacker News

Lisp, Smalltalk, and the Power of Symmetry (2014)

insearchofsecrets.com

61–62 of 62 posts

Re: Lisp, Smalltalk, and the Power of Symmetry (2014)

#61
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with that. When I mentioned dynamic dispatch, I had something like Scheme or JavaScript in my mind. Dynamic dispatch in those languages require a more subtle analysis to obtain precise results. I wish I could edit my parent comment to clarify my example. To clarify my position (hence my parent comment's point) on this general matter, I'm OK with any language feature that is amenable to static analysis…

I think the standard counterargument is that if unit testing is ubiquitous, we're already admitting static analysis is at best very incomplete.

I think some guys actually proved that in the 1930s. But so what? Program analysis and testing complement one another.

Re: Lisp, Smalltalk, and the Power of Symmetry (2014)

#62
post #4

Lisp and Smalltalk actually suffer from the same problem: late-binding sucks. When I was in college a professor once pointed out to me that he didn't know of an LL(1) parser for Smalltalk. There's a reason for that: Smalltalk's syntax is late-bound! It's almost like Forth's syntax: the reader consumes words and decides what to do with them on the spot, whether they represent variables, operators, constants, or parts…

I wouldn't be so sure. ACL2 is written in LISP. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/
Post reply on HN