Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Peter J. Holzer, post: 4872186"] I made a claim about the relative merits of Lisp *and* Perl. I could use the same condescending tone you use, but I won't. You didn't say what the relevant part of the paper was. You should expect that when you cite a paper as support of your claims that one assumes that the topic of the paper has something to do with your claim. However, I noticed section 2.3: But without knowing more about the case and a comparison to other languages you really can't say whether finding the bug within a day was fast or slow. I've found similar bugs in C programs within 5 minutes, so I could claim that C is much easier to debug than Lisp (omitting the important facts that the C programs where rather short (a few hundred lines) and were written by students in a systems programming course (so I expected race conditions and was specifically looking for them)). A REPL[1] doesn't help you much finding race conditions or bugs that cause the program to "start failing silently and intermittently". So it is moot for the two cases you mentioned. It can be very helpful in other cases, though. I didn't say that Perl is easier to debug than Perl. I said I doubt that Lisp is much easier to debug than Perl. There is a slight difference which you should be able to spot. hp [1] The Perl module Devel::REPL is on the first page of Google results when you search for "REPL". [/QUOTE]