http://rigaux.org/language-study/scripting-language/
How accurate is this? Can our expert programmers pump up the numbers for Scheme a bit?
The issues is that "Scheme" is a vague target, most of the code wouldn't just work with any implementation. There is a bias towards Unix scriptability, so of course shell and perl has an advantage.
Why? Do we need to compete with other languages?
Is lisp even a scripting language?
I've always thought of it as a C competitor
>>4
It's a Unix (userland) competitor
>>3
Yes.
>>4
C is also there, with a score of 40. That's only 5 less than the Scheme score.
>>2
It is not only biased, but some of the sh solutions cheat. In "system" it does not actually call any external program, in "sed" it calls and external C program instead of implementing it in (ba)sh, same with "grep".
For Scheme they target Guile 1.4. You can target your favourite implementation. These are basically codegolf and I was interested in seeing what the wizards here would come up with.
I was looking at the wrong table, C actually has 68 points while Scheme has 94, sorry.
>>6
Batch jobs are and never will be scripting languages, anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be took seriously.
These are basically codegolf and I was interested in seeing what the wizards here would come up with.
This place is dead.
I think it's worth noting that this is more of a test of ergonomics than expressiveness even in the UNIX environment. Ergonomics does lend some power, but features which improve ergonomics can generally be implemented in a sufficiently expressive language.