4 ms·

The question is its own answer.

by macmac 11y ago

mod 11y ago
So why are we trying to differentiate lisps, given that they're excellent? Are they each better for some reason? Why innovate on perfection? Or, why not improve the existing lisps rather than create new ones? I understand what you meant, but I don't know the answer to these questions--before or after reading the article. (I have given clojure a shot, though, and I enjoyed myself!)
- zem 11y ago
  don't think of "lisp" as a language, think of it as another branch in the evolutionary tree of programming languages. the "lisp is great" people are not saying that any given lisp-based language is the be-all and end-all of programming languages, they are saying that the lisp branch is the best branch to explore.
  - macmac 11y ago
    That's just scary...
    - KurtMueller 11y ago
      Hi macmac. Can you expound a bit as to why you this line of thinking is scary?
- macmac 11y ago
  Part of the perfection is that it can relatively easily be reimplemented and varied. Clojure uses this to leverage the JVM and adds support for concurrency etc. When people say Lisp is perfection they don't mean that one particular Lisp is perfection, but the idea of Lisp is perfection - or damn close to it.
- ohnomrbill 11y ago
  > So why are we trying to differentiate lisps, given that they're excellent? I think the best way to look at this question is to think about who "we" is. Are the sum total of programmers using lisp coordinating to make a final decision on how many lisps there should be? Certainly not. I don't know all the people using lisp, and I never will. So it doesn't make sense that they're trying to do anything. This community isn't defined in such a way that it's meaningful to talk about directed effort. There are plenty of reasons to make different lisps without implicitly disparaging the functionality of existing lisps. Perhaps you want to learn about how lisps work by implementing your own. None of the existing languages would help you there. Perhaps you simply have a sense of curiosity about a language feature, and want to implement it somewhere. A less mature lisp might help, if the codebase is smaller and easier to reason about. Perhaps you need to use the JVM for business reasons. Perhaps the JVM is too much for the hardware you're running on, and need a C variant. Perhaps there's one with a particularly useful FFI to another language.
- echu_marbdan 11y ago
  Why are Lisps excellent, is a better question. They work well with structure editors, and they allow for very powerful metaprogramming of the language to add in any needed features. Those forms of excellence do not put Lisp on the JVM, nor give emphasis to multi-threaded, functional programming. Hence, Clojure.

The question is its own answer.

by macmac 11y ago

The question is its own answer.

mod 11y ago

So why are we trying to differentiate lisps, given that they're excellent? Are they each better for some reason? Why innovate on perfection? Or, why not improve the existing lisps rather than create new ones? I understand what you meant, but I don't know the answer to these questions--before or after reading the article. (I have given clojure a shot, though, and I enjoyed myself!)

zem 11y ago
don't think of "lisp" as a language, think of it as another branch in the evolutionary tree of programming languages. the "lisp is great" people are not saying that any given lisp-based language is the be-all and end-all of programming languages, they are saying that the lisp branch is the best branch to explore.
- macmac 11y ago
  That's just scary...
  - KurtMueller 11y ago
    Hi macmac. Can you expound a bit as to why you this line of thinking is scary?
macmac 11y ago
Part of the perfection is that it can relatively easily be reimplemented and varied. Clojure uses this to leverage the JVM and adds support for concurrency etc. When people say Lisp is perfection they don't mean that one particular Lisp is perfection, but the idea of Lisp is perfection - or damn close to it.
ohnomrbill 11y ago
> So why are we trying to differentiate lisps, given that they're excellent? I think the best way to look at this question is to think about who "we" is. Are the sum total of programmers using lisp coordinating to make a final decision on how many lisps there should be? Certainly not. I don't know all the people using lisp, and I never will. So it doesn't make sense that they're trying to do anything. This community isn't defined in such a way that it's meaningful to talk about directed effort. There are plenty of reasons to make different lisps without implicitly disparaging the functionality of existing lisps. Perhaps you want to learn about how lisps work by implementing your own. None of the existing languages would help you there. Perhaps you simply have a sense of curiosity about a language feature, and want to implement it somewhere. A less mature lisp might help, if the codebase is smaller and easier to reason about. Perhaps you need to use the JVM for business reasons. Perhaps the JVM is too much for the hardware you're running on, and need a C variant. Perhaps there's one with a particularly useful FFI to another language.
echu_marbdan 11y ago
Why are Lisps excellent, is a better question. They work well with structure editors, and they allow for very powerful metaprogramming of the language to add in any needed features. Those forms of excellence do not put Lisp on the JVM, nor give emphasis to multi-threaded, functional programming. Hence, Clojure.