LISP is powerful to use, easy to learn, and fast to run. It is also 100% open source. LISP has been around for ages. It is older than C++. I think all the world needs is C and LISP. All this C++, PHP, PERL, Python, and Ruby soup is just too much.
I have been studying PERL, but the second version of the language is already out but the VM and such are not yet recommened for production. I don't want to finish learning this "dead language" or have to port production code that I produce later into PERL 6. I have just started looking at Ruby and after reading up on this language I realized that it does not have a specification, so right now the specification of the language is the interpreter (as PERL did). That is the same error that PERL 5 made. They just kept adding stuff on instead of making a spec; eventually there was so much cruft that things were hard to change but relatively easy to maintain, therefore they could maintain the illusion that they did not make a critical error. The PERL guys do not want to admit that PERL is has become very "crufty" - even for itself. I like those PERL guys but they have been drinking too much of their own Kool-Aid.
Now, when I look at Ruby. I see them making a similar mistake. There exists a specification (DRAFT) of a spec for Ruby based on Ruby 1.8 that will be the official spec into the foreseeable future for a Ruby spec. I guess the Ruby guys learned from the mistakes of the PERL guys.
My question is, why re-live learning pains and not use LISP when it already has a spec, history, capability, and the expertise as a language to service humanity?
I have been studying PERL, but the second version of the language is already out but the VM and such are not yet recommened for production. I don't want to finish learning this "dead language" or have to port production code that I produce later into PERL 6. I have just started looking at Ruby and after reading up on this language I realized that it does not have a specification, so right now the specification of the language is the interpreter (as PERL did). That is the same error that PERL 5 made. They just kept adding stuff on instead of making a spec; eventually there was so much cruft that things were hard to change but relatively easy to maintain, therefore they could maintain the illusion that they did not make a critical error. The PERL guys do not want to admit that PERL is has become very "crufty" - even for itself. I like those PERL guys but they have been drinking too much of their own Kool-Aid.
Now, when I look at Ruby. I see them making a similar mistake. There exists a specification (DRAFT) of a spec for Ruby based on Ruby 1.8 that will be the official spec into the foreseeable future for a Ruby spec. I guess the Ruby guys learned from the mistakes of the PERL guys.
My question is, why re-live learning pains and not use LISP when it already has a spec, history, capability, and the expertise as a language to service humanity?