On 8/25/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:
> Sharon Phillips wrote:
> >
> > As for me, I'm still sort of trying Lisp. I'm mustn't be old enough
> > cause I just can't acquire a taste for emacs. I find it completely
> > impenetrable and the 'reward' of learning Lisp isn't sufficient for me
> > to endure it. Every now and then, though, I give it another shot.
>
> Yeah, you're right. Lisp and Forth are great old languages, but they
> were a lot more fun when they (and we) were younger. :) If I hadn't
> learned Lisp 1.5 in the 1970s I probably wouldn't attempt it now.
>
> Forth, on the other hand, is something I'd probably learn now if I
> didn't already know it. It's an amazing set of concepts that look really
> weird until you stare at them long enough. At some point in the process,
> you go, "Oh My God -- that's *brilliant*,", at which point you are a
> Forth addict. :)
>
> I do want to sit down some day with a good Scheme and learn the
> internals, though. Speaking of which, a couple of weeks ago, Amazon.ca
> accidentally posted a price of $4 (CDN, IIRC) for "Lisp in Small
> Pieces". A bunch of folks from some other mailing lists jumped on it,
> and of course, Amazon cancelled their orders, although they felt guilty
> enough to give the losers a $10 gift certificate. But I ended up getting
> a copy at list price and it was well worth it.
>
> > Erlang though? Two thumbs up.
>
> Definitely!!

I know it is OT but do you share my POV that from all that old
languages the only one that is still ahead of its time is Smalltalk?
And to come back to the issue, How old is Erlang BTW (I did not find a
historical chapter in my book)?
Cheers
Robert
-- 
I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know
except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for
other people.
-- Katharine Hepburn