Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 23rd Nov 2004 01:43 UTC, submitted by Lumbergh
JetBrains IDEA developer, Sergey Dmitriev, talks future programming paradigms and the problems with today's programming models.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
> Well, you don't have to modify DrScheme, because it
> already comes with that functionality.
Yes, but the point was being able to add such things if the IDE _doesn't_ come with it, because the IDE cannot include anything you could think of.
> In any case, why isn't modifying the IDE allowed? The
> thing you forget is that most Lisp IDE's are tightly
> integrated with the language and the environment. So
> adding a module to handle something like that is really no
> different than adding a library to your program.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, by saying that the IDE should not be modified I mean that it should be extensible that way without rewriting it completely. Admitted, by using an extensible IDE you can achieve mostly the same I think (probably that *is* some kind of LOP then by definition). I wasn't right either to say that Lisp macros are not LOP - they are a limited variant because they're text only (as most programming languages are a limited variant).
Still I think the comment by someone saying that people should use Lisp instead of re-inventing it is not valid. Original Lisp did NOT provide all that. If the original was enough, why use DrScheme after all?