4 ms·

This was the first thing I noticed as well. I mean, that's from an age where Java and C++ libraries, frameworks and build systems were nowhere near as advanced

by sspiff 11y ago

This was the first thing I noticed as well. I mean, that's from an age where Java and C++ libraries, frameworks and build systems were nowhere near as advanced as today. Scheme has seen little investment in their infrastructure and ecosystem in the past 15 years, whereas C++ and Java have seen millions of dollars and many man-years invested in libraries etc. I doubt this data is still valid today, even if it was a decade and a half ago.

kryptiskt 11y ago
Racket has a lovely environment, and as a language it has progressed far more than Java has. C++ remains nobody's idea of a language for rapid development.
- cmrdporcupine 11y ago
  I find with the right choice of libraries, and using CLion IDE I'm as efficient in C++ as I was in Java. The introduction of c++11, along with modern refactoring IDEs for C++ has been a godsend. I prefer the Rust language, but until there's an IntelliJ/CLion class IDE for it, I don't know if I'd go down that route...
- sspiff 11y ago
  Sure, the language has progressed, but the libraries, resources, documentation, ... haven't to the same degree as with more popular languages. Trying to do anything in Java and things go wrong? Google, click on the first StackOverflow result and you have the blueprint for a solution. The same can not be said about Racket, at least not with the same breadth of problems.
  - scrupulusalbion 11y ago
    Perhaps lisps do not benefit from progression in libraries; creation of new resources; and don't need to change often enough to warrant new documentation. What does it mean when a language becomes less and less useful without its specification being progressively changed, with the commensurate documentation changes? What does it mean that a language has tons of questions on Stack Overflow? It would seem that an ideal language is one whose specification is static so that old and new resources, libraries, and documentation remain perpetually useful. However, such a specificationally-static language can only be itself perpetually useful if it is properly flexible to the needs of the programmer. I hear that at least some Lisps are quite flexible, though I unfortunately don't have a good way to fathom/define what constitutes flexibility.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Not true: LISP would've benefited greatly from at least one core usage and set of libraries that were easy-to-use with lots of uptake. Call it the Python effect. How it's been used and expanded is quite amazing. LISP could've done more but wasn't restrained enough by community. The reasons for this are social, not technical. Probably best explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11174946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11174946 Meanwhile, languages like Ocaml, Haskell, and Python pick up the ball by trying to include plenty of power but in constrained and standardized ways that benefit from communities. Results are paying off. There's a few LISP's that do the same thing with better results than prior LISP's. Hopefully, those will keep getting uptake as I think powerful and constrained languages each have something to offer. Best to develop both in parallel, esp as one can implement the other. ;)
    - conceit 11y ago
      > What does it mean that a language has tons of questions on Stack Overflow? That it's used by script kiddies, passionless code monkeys and management types (tm) (I wouldn't really know about the latter). The clueless copy pasta code is what hurt PHP's reputation, I hear (but again, I wouldn't know much about it except for the comments I read).
wtbob 11y ago
> This was the first thing I noticed as well. I mean, that's from an age where Java and C++ libraries, frameworks and build systems were nowhere near as advanced as today. > Scheme has seen little investment in their infrastructure and ecosystem in the past 15 years, whereas C++ and Java have seen millions of dollars and many man-years invested in libraries etc. I think that 15 years ago Java and C++ had more libraries than Scheme and Common Lisp, and that even with millions of dollars invested the infrastructure around Java and C++ isn't nearly as powerful as what Common Lisp provides in the standard.

by sspiff 11y ago

kryptiskt 11y ago

Racket has a lovely environment, and as a language it has progressed far more than Java has. C++ remains nobody's idea of a language for rapid development.

cmrdporcupine 11y ago
I find with the right choice of libraries, and using CLion IDE I'm as efficient in C++ as I was in Java. The introduction of c++11, along with modern refactoring IDEs for C++ has been a godsend. I prefer the Rust language, but until there's an IntelliJ/CLion class IDE for it, I don't know if I'd go down that route...
sspiff 11y ago
Sure, the language has progressed, but the libraries, resources, documentation, ... haven't to the same degree as with more popular languages. Trying to do anything in Java and things go wrong? Google, click on the first StackOverflow result and you have the blueprint for a solution. The same can not be said about Racket, at least not with the same breadth of problems.
- scrupulusalbion 11y ago
  Perhaps lisps do not benefit from progression in libraries; creation of new resources; and don't need to change often enough to warrant new documentation. What does it mean when a language becomes less and less useful without its specification being progressively changed, with the commensurate documentation changes? What does it mean that a language has tons of questions on Stack Overflow? It would seem that an ideal language is one whose specification is static so that old and new resources, libraries, and documentation remain perpetually useful. However, such a specificationally-static language can only be itself perpetually useful if it is properly flexible to the needs of the programmer. I hear that at least some Lisps are quite flexible, though I unfortunately don't have a good way to fathom/define what constitutes flexibility.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Not true: LISP would've benefited greatly from at least one core usage and set of libraries that were easy-to-use with lots of uptake. Call it the Python effect. How it's been used and expanded is quite amazing. LISP could've done more but wasn't restrained enough by community. The reasons for this are social, not technical. Probably best explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11174946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11174946 Meanwhile, languages like Ocaml, Haskell, and Python pick up the ball by trying to include plenty of power but in constrained and standardized ways that benefit from communities. Results are paying off. There's a few LISP's that do the same thing with better results than prior LISP's. Hopefully, those will keep getting uptake as I think powerful and constrained languages each have something to offer. Best to develop both in parallel, esp as one can implement the other. ;)
  - conceit 11y ago
    > What does it mean that a language has tons of questions on Stack Overflow? That it's used by script kiddies, passionless code monkeys and management types (tm) (I wouldn't really know about the latter). The clueless copy pasta code is what hurt PHP's reputation, I hear (but again, I wouldn't know much about it except for the comments I read).

wtbob 11y ago

> This was the first thing I noticed as well. I mean, that's from an age where Java and C++ libraries, frameworks and build systems were nowhere near as advanced as today. > Scheme has seen little investment in their infrastructure and ecosystem in the past 15 years, whereas C++ and Java have seen millions of dollars and many man-years invested in libraries etc. I think that 15 years ago Java and C++ had more libraries than Scheme and Common Lisp, and that even with millions of dollars invested the infrastructure around Java and C++ isn't nearly as powerful as what Common Lisp provides in the standard.