1. 9

  2. 13

    I have now clarified that I mention Common Lisp only an illustrative counter-example. I do not want to get into an extended argument here about Common Lisp.

    Well next time try putting in the title something you have a clue about.

    1. 15

      Click-bait. It’s obvious stuff and most of the time related to JS things. Not so interesting.

      1. 4

        While the title is misleading, the contents is interesting from a PL design perspective. I find it very regrettable that instead of focusing on simplifying JavaScript and leveraging a rich ecosystem of transpires, the language instead evolved to become some kind of dynamic Java or C#. In an alternate reality, JavaScript got extended with type annotations and JIT hints to make it faster, and got all the support to leverage it’s prototype-based object model. It’s such a missed opportunity that JavaScript became more like Java and less like Lisp (or rather, Scheme).

        1. 1

          ““Common Lisp” is not the topic. It serves only as one of many illustrative counter-examples.”

          If the title had mentioned what this article is actually about I might have read it sooner. I like CL as a multi-paradigm language. I don’t like JavaScript as one.