Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RG, post: 4872187"] But then of course you do: Frustration can drive even the best among us to snarkiness. Look, I understand what you were saying the first time you said it. But I disagree with you: I think Lisp is easier to debug than Perl. I have two data points and one theoretical argument to support my position, but no hard proof. I might be wrong. But all the evidence I have at my disposal indicates to me that I am not. BTW, I disagree with this too: A REPL can be very useful in debugging such problems. Having a REPL aboard DS1 was invaluable in finding and fixing the RAX bug. And there's another data point in the NASA lore to support this point of view: there was a similar problem with the Pathfinder Rover that was found and fixed using a virtually identical process. In this case the software was written in C, but there was nonetheless a REPL because the C code was running under vxWorks, which provides a shell that, while not a full REPL, provides much of the same functionality. If you have some actual evidence or theoretical arguments to support your position let's hear them. All I've heard from you so far is unsupported assertions and arguments of the form, "You haven't proven X, therefore X is not true." If that's all you've got we'll just have to agree to disagree. rg [/QUOTE]