That is true but I'd rather have the strategy in my toolbox and the choice to deploy it when needed rather than the language implementor making that decision for me.
That's a fundamental difference between Common Lisp and other more popular languages. CL tries to give you all the tools and trusts you to use them responsibly. Other, more opinionated languages, limit the problem solving approaches they offer in the interest of (popularity|performance|implementation simplicity|personal philosophy).
The CL philosophy makes a lot of sense if you examine its background and the culture that birthed it: a language designed to solve hard problems that did not have well-defined solutions.
Comments
That is true but I'd rather have the strategy in my toolbox and the choice to deploy it when needed rather than the language implementor making that decision for me.
That's a fundamental difference between Common Lisp and other more popular languages. CL tries to give you all the tools and trusts you to use them responsibly. Other, more opinionated languages, limit the problem solving approaches they offer in the interest of (popularity|performance|implementation simplicity|personal philosophy).
The CL philosophy makes a lot of sense if you examine its background and the culture that birthed it: a language designed to solve hard problems that did not have well-defined solutions.