3 ms·

I don't know if understanding LISP is really elitism. I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it. I think the key reason people have the attitude

I don't know if understanding LISP is really elitism. I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it. I think the key reason people have the attitude against the syntax is because they learned languages that looked a certain way, and to them - that's programming damn it. I mean LISP syntax is objectively much more simple. I think if you were to sit programming novices - with no pre-conceived notions - infront of an s-expression language and an ALGOL looking one, you wouldn't find much difference on which is easier to learn. I genuinely think people have difficulty letting go of stuff when they learn LISP. When I first started I thought all the parens were silly as well, and I thought stuff like sweet-expressions [1] were clearly the way forward and it was only those stuffy old elitist scheme programmers who couldn't see it. But over time I saw that the simplicity and regularity of s-expressions made it worth it. Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax into LISP reminds me of nothing so much as training wheels on a bicycle. Sure I suppose you can call those of us who ride a bicycle with two simple wheels "elitsts" and accuse of rejecting "convenience", but to be honest when I see people defending ugly literals and complicating the syntax of a LISP language, I can't help but suggesting that they learn to ride a damn bike. [1] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html

keymone 10y ago
> I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it yeah, exactly, it doesn't. which makes lisp elitism very awkward. > LISP syntax is objectively much more simple things can be too simple, to the point where it is counter productive and harmful. example - why do you need all these weird symbols to represent numbers 1234567890? seems like 1 does the job just fine. unary arithmetic is trivial - just stitch numbers together and you have addition, just repeat them X times and you have multiplication. no need for weird shenanigans with symbols changing because of trivial operations. > Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax i genuinely think you have difficulty letting go of your biases. all clojure did was designate two more kinds of parens to mean something useful in a language. it's a tradeoff between being pure lisp and being easier to grasp while still remaining lisp. but i can see now, tradeoffs are hard to understand for elitists/purists. i wonder if every time when you buy a keyboard/laptop you're ripping off those damn [] and {}. because your arguments are unreasonable enough to think that might actually be true.
- kazinator 10y ago
  > > I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it > yeah, exactly, it doesn't. which makes lisp elitism very awkward. The thing is, people sometimes use elitism as a synonym for chauvinism, which it isn't. "Lisp is easy, everyone should use it for everything" doesn't, by itself, meet the definition elitism because it doesn't refer to some small elite group being somehow better than others.
  - keymone 10y ago
    > "Lisp is easy, everyone should use it for everything" doesn't, by itself, meet the definition elitism agreed. > Lisp is only pure s-expressions and everybody who can't read them or wants a more 'convenient' syntax are too stupid to understand it however does meet that definition in my opinion.
    - kazinator 10y ago
      Well, too stupid to be computer programmers, that much is true. That sort of statement is tech elitism, not Lisp elitism. Usually out of frustration when dealing with trolls. I don't believe that there are any programmers who genuinely can't deal with Lisp syntax at least as well as they deal with any other syntax. There are only trolls who lie in making that claim, and there are trolling non-programmers who tell the truth. Simplified syntax is mostly a threat to those who hold mastery of some arcane syntax as their principal intellectual achievement: i.e. advanced newbies. The fact that exactly the same semantics can be expressed in a syntax that lesser newbies can learn in a day is a big threat to someone who spent months memorizing some syntax, because it means something in which they take pride as a great value is actually worthless "fool's gold". If you're a professional who does a lot of numeric work with arithmetic expressions, working in S-exps will make you grumble, but you can do it.
      - keymone 10y ago
        i'll just repeat what i've said before - lisp purism is not a valid reason to not adopt data literals for useful data structures. there is nothing inherently worse about [1 2 3] over (vector 1 2 3) in terms of "the lisp idea", but it is order of magnitude easier to work with in terms of ability to scan structure of code.

keymone 10y ago

> I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it yeah, exactly, it doesn't. which makes lisp elitism very awkward. > LISP syntax is objectively much more simple things can be too simple, to the point where it is counter productive and harmful. example - why do you need all these weird symbols to represent numbers 1234567890? seems like 1 does the job just fine. unary arithmetic is trivial - just stitch numbers together and you have addition, just repeat them X times and you have multiplication. no need for weird shenanigans with symbols changing because of trivial operations. > Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax i genuinely think you have difficulty letting go of your biases. all clojure did was designate two more kinds of parens to mean something useful in a language. it's a tradeoff between being pure lisp and being easier to grasp while still remaining lisp. but i can see now, tradeoffs are hard to understand for elitists/purists. i wonder if every time when you buy a keyboard/laptop you're ripping off those damn [] and {}. because your arguments are unreasonable enough to think that might actually be true.

kazinator 10y ago
> > I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it > yeah, exactly, it doesn't. which makes lisp elitism very awkward. The thing is, people sometimes use elitism as a synonym for chauvinism, which it isn't. "Lisp is easy, everyone should use it for everything" doesn't, by itself, meet the definition elitism because it doesn't refer to some small elite group being somehow better than others.
- keymone 10y ago
  > "Lisp is easy, everyone should use it for everything" doesn't, by itself, meet the definition elitism agreed. > Lisp is only pure s-expressions and everybody who can't read them or wants a more 'convenient' syntax are too stupid to understand it however does meet that definition in my opinion.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    Well, too stupid to be computer programmers, that much is true. That sort of statement is tech elitism, not Lisp elitism. Usually out of frustration when dealing with trolls. I don't believe that there are any programmers who genuinely can't deal with Lisp syntax at least as well as they deal with any other syntax. There are only trolls who lie in making that claim, and there are trolling non-programmers who tell the truth. Simplified syntax is mostly a threat to those who hold mastery of some arcane syntax as their principal intellectual achievement: i.e. advanced newbies. The fact that exactly the same semantics can be expressed in a syntax that lesser newbies can learn in a day is a big threat to someone who spent months memorizing some syntax, because it means something in which they take pride as a great value is actually worthless "fool's gold". If you're a professional who does a lot of numeric work with arithmetic expressions, working in S-exps will make you grumble, but you can do it.
    - keymone 10y ago
      i'll just repeat what i've said before - lisp purism is not a valid reason to not adopt data literals for useful data structures. there is nothing inherently worse about [1 2 3] over (vector 1 2 3) in terms of "the lisp idea", but it is order of magnitude easier to work with in terms of ability to scan structure of code.