Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <D1818v.BBs@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com> <vogtD12y8D.HLL@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:46:06 GMT
Lines: 15
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104540 comp.lang.lisp:16153

I don't know C++, since it's too complex for me to want to learn it
until I have to.

I prefer to develop in Lisp than C; the results tend to be shorter
in terms of number of chars or lines of code but less efficient
than what I good C programmer would produce.  Unfortunately, this
is just qualitative, but I've often found myself finished when
C (or equiv) programmers were still writing some storage management.
There are also cases when I could have used either language but
could so things w/ less work in Lisp.

Until I came to Edinburgh in 1983, I wrote far more in non-Lisp than
in Lisp, and so I'm pretty sure it's not just due to "what I'm used to".

-- jeff
