Anonymous user
Talk:Function definition: Difference between revisions
→Lisp, BASIC: categorize for the working programmer
m (→Lisp, BASIC: I just noted that I had forgotten to sign my previous entry; fixed that) |
(→Lisp, BASIC: categorize for the working programmer) |
||
Line 33:
:: Well, the differences in BASIC are far greater: It isn't even possible to write a (non-empty) ''do-nothing'' program which works both in original BASIC and current languages using that name.
:: It certainly doesn't make sense to have both Lisp and Common Lisp here (it would make sense if Common Lisp had significant differences relevant for that task). IMHO it would however be reasonable to move the Common Lisp example to "Lisp" --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 08:01, 2 March 2008 (MST)
No actual programmer is going to be "writing a program in Lisp" — they're going to be writing it in <insert Lisp dialect here>. I think the examples should be categorized according to how a practicing programmer would identify the language they're working in. Therefore, there should be a "Common Lisp" example. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 08:23, 2 March 2008 (MST)
| |||