Interesting: "Lisp as a competitive advantage"

[andrew@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk]

Two things in that interested me.  First, the comment that "runtime
typing" is becoming more popular - did he mean strong rather than weak
typing, or dynamic rather than static?

Second, more interestingly, I was surprised at his emphasis on macros.
Having read his (excellent) On Lisp maybe I shouldn't have been (since
that is largely about macros), but anyway, I think it's interesting
because it's one of the big differences between Lisp and the
statically typed languages (STLs).

I have used neither Lisp nor Haskell (or ML) long enough to make a
sound judgementon this, so I'd like to hear other views.  My first
thought is that higher order functions are easier to manage in STLs
and might provide some compensation.  Also, I'm aware that (limited?)
code manipulation is possible in some STLs (there's an ML library
whose name I've forgotten).  How do these compare?

I realise I could get more response by a usenet post to c.l.f and
c.l.l, but I'm hoping there might be more light here.  Apologies if
it's too off-topic.

Thanks,
Andrew

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 08:58:07PM -0400, Sengan wrote:
> http://www.paulgraham.com/paulgraham/avg.html
> 
> I wonder how Haskell compares in this regard.
> Any comment from Haskell startups? (eg Galois Connections)
> 
> Sengan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell mailing list
> Haskell@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
> 

-- 
http://www.andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk/index.html