3 ms·
I think it's worth learning. But the idea that it's some glorious font of enlightenment? To paraphrase Frank Zappa, pheeeeeeuw.
by draw_down 10y ago
I think it's worth learning. But the idea that it's some glorious font of enlightenment? To paraphrase Frank Zappa, pheeeeeeuw.
- nolemurs 10y agoOne of the things that slows me down is that whenever I see Lisp code, my mind goes to the equivalent Haskell code, and the comparison is basically never favorable. I'm a firm believer in the value of learning a functional language, and I totally understand that from a historical perspective Lisp is important, but does it really have much to recommend it over modern functional langauges?
- marcosdumay 10y agoLisp goes for its simplicity and metaprogramming power. I wouldn't recommend anybody to learn functional programming in it.
- platz 10y ago> my mind goes to the equivalent Haskell code yup, I was doing this too. notice also he did give a nod/mention in the post
- curuinor 10y agoThis is clojure so it seems damned modernish
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoYou can write functional code in Lisp. But Lisp isn't really a functional language. That is, you have to kind of fight the language to write non-functional code in Haskell. In Lisp, you don't. So if you learn Lisp, you learn a language that transcends programming style. It's much more universal than Haskell.
- platz 10y agoif you learn Lisp, you very quickly learn to lean heavily on macros, which is very much a programming style.
- rev_null 10y agoYeah, Church-encoding is a lot nicer to use when you can wrap the function in a new type.
- ep103 10y agohttp://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html