8 ms·

7 - It's too easy to make a mess. And the mess made by brilliant people who are looking for any excuse to put higher order metaprogramming and functional concep

7 - It's too easy to make a mess. And the mess made by brilliant people who are looking for any excuse to put higher order metaprogramming and functional concepts into production is considerable. 8 - It has consistently lost in the marketplace in the last 20 years. We had most top CS grads in North America groomed on SICP at one point in history. You'd think many of them would want to use Lisp in production. Many of them did. Now MIT uses Python to introduce programming, and Lisp code bases tend to be (horrifying) legacy systems. Virtually no startups base the core of their business on Lisp anymore, and it's not because the technical founders aren't aware of it. (Lots of skunkworks Clojure projects are out there bearing load though.)

Jach 9y ago
SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp. It was taught at an introductory level because some concepts of computation can be taught nicely with Scheme, up to making a compiler for another language (perhaps a "real" language in the student's minds?), but it doesn't actually teach you Lisp, and I imagine leaves a bad taste in many students' mouth at the nonsense no-for-looping-no-mutation they had to suffer through which isn't a requirement in Lisp (nor necessarily in Scheme). SICP doesn't even have something as quick to go through as e.g. this series http://malisper.me/2015/07/07/debugging-lisp-part-1-recompilation/ http://malisper.me/2015/07/07/debugging-lisp-part-1-recompil... to get a feel for what it's actually like to work with Lisp. Clojure has been very successful though it seems like your point #7 would apply more-so to it (since Lisp isn't as functional oriented) unless you mean crazy-in-production things like closures and mapping functions. =P I don't even think you can call all that many Clojure projects skunkworks ones, because the language is quite visibly successful. Something like https://www.ptc.com/cad/elements-direct/modeling https://www.ptc.com/cad/elements-direct/modeling you might call a skunkworks success for Lisp...
- icc97 9y ago
  > SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp. Wikipedia [0]: > Scheme is a functional programming language and one of the two main dialects of the programming language Lisp. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language...
  - Jach 9y ago
    Keyword: dialect. But Erik Naggum, 2002 [0]: > The "Lisp" Scheme is a dialect of is no longer the current meaning of "Lisp". It is somewhat like calling English a dialect of German because of ancient history that has since between invalidated by each of their separate evolution, Fahrvergnügen, Weltanschauung, Kindergarten, and Pennsylvania to the contrary notwithstanding. There is also a very limited value in talking about "Germanic languages" in terms of your actual ability to use any of the Germanic languags. You do not order the "vertebrate" in a restaurant, but generally choose between fish or bird or meat. In other words, there is a time when an abstraction and a commonality has completely ceased to be valuable. [0] http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.net.txt http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum....
    - gizmo385 9y ago
      I feel like there should be a "No True LISP" fallacy in CS... It expresses pretty much all of the core principals of a LISP. If it looks like a LISP, thinks like a LISP, behaves like a LISP; then do you really gain anything by trying to separate from other LISPs?
      - Jach 9y ago
        Is Python a LISP? Is JavaScript a LISP? Is Java a LISP? What do you mean by LISP, by its core principles? What does a different set of core principles look like that lends itself to a different family? I threw in my vague classification above: sexps and macros. But you can have macros without sexps, and sexps without macros (lots of "toy lisp interpreters" do that), are they LISPs? Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. What do you gain by trying to separate from other ALGOLs? Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme.
        lacampbell 9y ago
        Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. We sometimes do though, don't we? Not that terminology, but I often see the people talking about "curly brace languages" or "C/C++/Java/C#".
- amackera 9y ago
  "SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp." --- is that a "no true Scotsman" argument or do you just mean "Scheme is not Common Lisp"?
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    I'm guessing the latter.
  - Jach 9y ago
    I mean Scheme is not Common Lisp, and Common Lisp is Lisp. Both are "a Lisp" (as is Clojure), or perhaps "a dialect of Lisp", but it's questionable if that really means anything beyond s-exps and macros.
    - amackera 9y ago
      So when somebody says "I am going to write some Lisp now", in your mind they are always going to write Common Lisp?
    - openasocket 9y ago
      Why does Common Lisp get the distinction of being the "true Lisp" and not Scheme? Scheme precedes Common Lisp by almost a decade
      - Jach 9y ago
        Naggum has a pretty good answer for that, linked in the other comment branch: http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.net.txt http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.... You could also argue based on things like Common Lisp can run LISP code from 1960 with a very small driver, or the general history of code porting and sharing, as done here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9387131#9404543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9387131#9404543
        openasocket 9y ago
        I read that answer, I didn't find it helpful on two points. 1. There's this really nice analogy about German and English languages, but it doesn't have any specifics. In particular, the crux of his entire argument is in this statement > The two languages and their attendant communities have drifted so far apart that there is nothing of value in their intersection. Which he simply states as fact without any sort of follow up or justification. And I disagree. Consider this Common Lisp snippet from Wikipedia computing the answer to the birthday paradox: (defconstant +year-size+ 365) (defun birthday-paradox (probability number-of-people) (let ((new-probability (* (/ (- +year-size+ number-of-people) +year-size+) probability))) (if (< new-probability 0.5) (1+ number-of-people) (birthday-paradox new-probability (1+ number-of- people))))) Literally replace "defconstant" with "define" and "defun birthday-paradox (probability number-of-people)" with "define (birthday-paradox probability number-of-people)" and that's valid Scheme. I'll readily admit they are two different languages, but pretending they are as different as C and Python or something is absurd. 2. Even if you convince me these two languages are so different, there's nothing here to convince me Common Lisp deserves the title of the "real Lisp" or "true Lisp". Scheme can also run LISP code from 1960 with a very small driver.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  Not only does SICP use Scheme, but it uses a really old and primitive Scheme, so that's what a lot of students who've only had exposure to SICP think all Schemes are like -- almost a toy language. They usually have no idea what a modern, full-featured Scheme like Chicken Scheme or Racket is like: light years ahead of the Scheme used in SICP, with a rich ecosystem of libraries.
deong 9y ago
To be fair, all code bases tend to be horrifying legacy systems if you wait long enough, and "long enough" is pretty much always shorter than the amount of time you'd want the system to still be in use.
Singletoned 9y ago
I strongly suspect that it is possible for a language to be too powerful. The more capacity a language has to let you do wonderful things, the more capacity it has to let you do truly awful things as well. ("With great power comes great responsibility" and all that). Also, something about the expressivity of the code means that your code is wonderful, but other peoples code is potentially a nightmare.

Jach 9y ago

SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp. It was taught at an introductory level because some concepts of computation can be taught nicely with Scheme, up to making a compiler for another language (perhaps a "real" language in the student's minds?), but it doesn't actually teach you Lisp, and I imagine leaves a bad taste in many students' mouth at the nonsense no-for-looping-no-mutation they had to suffer through which isn't a requirement in Lisp (nor necessarily in Scheme). SICP doesn't even have something as quick to go through as e.g. this series http://malisper.me/2015/07/07/debugging-lisp-part-1-recompilation/ http://malisper.me/2015/07/07/debugging-lisp-part-1-recompil... to get a feel for what it's actually like to work with Lisp. Clojure has been very successful though it seems like your point #7 would apply more-so to it (since Lisp isn't as functional oriented) unless you mean crazy-in-production things like closures and mapping functions. =P I don't even think you can call all that many Clojure projects skunkworks ones, because the language is quite visibly successful. Something like https://www.ptc.com/cad/elements-direct/modeling https://www.ptc.com/cad/elements-direct/modeling you might call a skunkworks success for Lisp...

icc97 9y ago
> SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp. Wikipedia [0]: > Scheme is a functional programming language and one of the two main dialects of the programming language Lisp. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_%28programming_language...
- Jach 9y ago
  Keyword: dialect. But Erik Naggum, 2002 [0]: > The "Lisp" Scheme is a dialect of is no longer the current meaning of "Lisp". It is somewhat like calling English a dialect of German because of ancient history that has since between invalidated by each of their separate evolution, Fahrvergnügen, Weltanschauung, Kindergarten, and Pennsylvania to the contrary notwithstanding. There is also a very limited value in talking about "Germanic languages" in terms of your actual ability to use any of the Germanic languags. You do not order the "vertebrate" in a restaurant, but generally choose between fish or bird or meat. In other words, there is a time when an abstraction and a commonality has completely ceased to be valuable. [0] http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.net.txt http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum....
  - gizmo385 9y ago
    I feel like there should be a "No True LISP" fallacy in CS... It expresses pretty much all of the core principals of a LISP. If it looks like a LISP, thinks like a LISP, behaves like a LISP; then do you really gain anything by trying to separate from other LISPs?
    - Jach 9y ago
      Is Python a LISP? Is JavaScript a LISP? Is Java a LISP? What do you mean by LISP, by its core principles? What does a different set of core principles look like that lends itself to a different family? I threw in my vague classification above: sexps and macros. But you can have macros without sexps, and sexps without macros (lots of "toy lisp interpreters" do that), are they LISPs? Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. What do you gain by trying to separate from other ALGOLs? Or less extremely, why don't we consider Python and Ruby to be the same family, or Java and C#? Those pairs are arguably more similar than the pair of Common Lisp and Scheme.
      - lacampbell 9y ago
        Lastly one wonders why we don't go calling all these C-like languages ALGOLs. We sometimes do though, don't we? Not that terminology, but I often see the people talking about "curly brace languages" or "C/C++/Java/C#".
amackera 9y ago
"SICP uses Scheme, which is not Lisp." --- is that a "no true Scotsman" argument or do you just mean "Scheme is not Common Lisp"?
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I'm guessing the latter.
- Jach 9y ago
  I mean Scheme is not Common Lisp, and Common Lisp is Lisp. Both are "a Lisp" (as is Clojure), or perhaps "a dialect of Lisp", but it's questionable if that really means anything beyond s-exps and macros.
  - amackera 9y ago
    So when somebody says "I am going to write some Lisp now", in your mind they are always going to write Common Lisp?
  - openasocket 9y ago
    Why does Common Lisp get the distinction of being the "true Lisp" and not Scheme? Scheme precedes Common Lisp by almost a decade
    - Jach 9y ago
      Naggum has a pretty good answer for that, linked in the other comment branch: http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.net.txt http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3224964049435643@naggum.... You could also argue based on things like Common Lisp can run LISP code from 1960 with a very small driver, or the general history of code porting and sharing, as done here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9387131#9404543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9387131#9404543
      - openasocket 9y ago
        I read that answer, I didn't find it helpful on two points. 1. There's this really nice analogy about German and English languages, but it doesn't have any specifics. In particular, the crux of his entire argument is in this statement > The two languages and their attendant communities have drifted so far apart that there is nothing of value in their intersection. Which he simply states as fact without any sort of follow up or justification. And I disagree. Consider this Common Lisp snippet from Wikipedia computing the answer to the birthday paradox: (defconstant +year-size+ 365) (defun birthday-paradox (probability number-of-people) (let ((new-probability (* (/ (- +year-size+ number-of-people) +year-size+) probability))) (if (< new-probability 0.5) (1+ number-of-people) (birthday-paradox new-probability (1+ number-of- people))))) Literally replace "defconstant" with "define" and "defun birthday-paradox (probability number-of-people)" with "define (birthday-paradox probability number-of-people)" and that's valid Scheme. I'll readily admit they are two different languages, but pretending they are as different as C and Python or something is absurd. 2. Even if you convince me these two languages are so different, there's nothing here to convince me Common Lisp deserves the title of the "real Lisp" or "true Lisp". Scheme can also run LISP code from 1960 with a very small driver.
pmoriarty 9y ago
Not only does SICP use Scheme, but it uses a really old and primitive Scheme, so that's what a lot of students who've only had exposure to SICP think all Schemes are like -- almost a toy language. They usually have no idea what a modern, full-featured Scheme like Chicken Scheme or Racket is like: light years ahead of the Scheme used in SICP, with a rich ecosystem of libraries.

deong 9y ago

To be fair, all code bases tend to be horrifying legacy systems if you wait long enough, and "long enough" is pretty much always shorter than the amount of time you'd want the system to still be in use.

Singletoned 9y ago

I strongly suspect that it is possible for a language to be too powerful. The more capacity a language has to let you do wonderful things, the more capacity it has to let you do truly awful things as well. ("With great power comes great responsibility" and all that). Also, something about the expressivity of the code means that your code is wonderful, but other peoples code is potentially a nightmare.