Complementary language?

[Alex Martelli]

Robin Becker <robin at SPAMREMOVEjessikat.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Alex Martelli wrote:
> .....
> > 
> > If you're looking for SERIOUS multiparadigmaticity, I think Oz may be
> > best -- <http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/book.html> (the book's
> > authors critique the vagueness of the "paradigm" concept, and prefer
> > "model", but that's much the same thing).
> 
> according to the language shootout at
> 
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&sort=cpu
> 
> Mozart/Oz comes last in cpu score. I suspect that may be due to 
> unfamilarity or poor implementation of the test codes. Everybody 'knows'
> that benchamrks are always wrong, but which score moves this language to
> the top in your opinion?

Hmmm, I'm not sure how to parse this question.  Robert Kern claimed:
"You could very easily learn more approaches to programming through
Common Lisp than three other languages", and I'm pointing out that, if
what you're after is to "learn more approaches to programming" via the
built-in features of a single language, Oz (with the CTMCP book) may
well be numero uno.  Judging from the blurb on the book's back, as I
also mentioned, Norvig, hardly a slouch when it comes to Lisp, appears
to share this assessment.

What the "language shootout" can possibly have to do with this issue
entirely escapes me.  Quite apart from "benchmarks are always wrong", I
don't think they're even _remotely_ trying to benchmark "how much does
learning this language teach you about different approaches to
programming" -- it would seem to be a mighty tall order to even set up a
controlled experiment to measure _that_ quantitatively!


Alex