Re: member returns list

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> Pascal criticizes early micro-processors for being
> bad. But, to those who used them it was often
> a choice of micro-processor or no processors at all.
> In that situation compile-only languages with
> a strong emphasis on efficiency (such as C) were the
> natural choice. We're all in a different
> situation now.

I'm on Linux which is a C implementation of the UNIX
C. I use the GNU implementation of the UNIX toolchain
- all C (almost). Emacs is C (with Lisp on top of it).
Apart from that I use zsh - C. And so on!

Feel free to verify this with your most basic tools
(e.g., ls(1)) - and up and until the superstar
applications: Emacs, the shell, and so on!

Try the command "get-command-source" from

    http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/.zsh/apt

to get the source just by feeding command names (e.g.,
'get-command-source ls' for ls).

I prefer Lisp for several reasons: it is more
advanced, no (re)compilation while debugging, no or
much less bulky type work, the code gets more modular,
no bulky header file work, much less error prone (no
pointers and stuff like that), etc. etc.

But that doesn't mean C is as bad as described.
If I would use a compiled language for an application
that needed it, I would use either C or C++. Those are
just different mindsets than Lisp.

I know from experience that Lisp, C++, and shell
programming can be a killer combo in one and the same
project. It all matters how you use them. If you do
crazy OO inheritance stuff etc. in C++ then of course
"C++" sucks. Stupid is as stupid does. It is not
about that.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573