6 ms·

There are many hypotheses out there that Lisp lacks popularity for this or that flaw in the language or in the community. The problem with these hypotheses is

by brlewis 19y ago

There are many hypotheses out there that Lisp lacks popularity for this or that flaw in the language or in the community. The problem with these hypotheses is that you can point to similar or bigger flaws in languages that have grown popular. If a language has good qualities, people will figure out ways around the problems. My hypothesis is that Lisp is unpopular for the exact same reason some of us love it: concise code. Everybody praises concise code, but humans love looking at things that have repeated patterns. The more you compress information, the fewer repeated patterns there are to look at. I wish PG well with Arc, but I don't think popularity will come from fixing anything that's wrong with Lisp. By my hypothesis, Lisp only becomes popular by fixing what's right with it.

ralphc 19y ago
I'll throw in my 2 cents... Up until recently, one "flaw" that Lisp had that other languages didn't was one obvious best implementation. If you want to work in Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, etc. you knew where to get them, and you know they would work similarly across platforms, so programs you wrote on your Mac would work on Windows and Linux, etc. With Lisp, different implementations did the "interesting" stuff (threads, sockets, FFI, etc.) differently, and hackers didn't want to invest time learning one implementation if everyone else decided that a different one was the best. No one wants to bet on the loser (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD), so they stay away until a clear winner emerges. It looks like SBCL is becoming that best implementation, and once threads work on Windows so the web frameworks will "work", that will help greatly. Another barrier is having to learn emacs/SLIME to have a decent development environment. That is a big piece of yak shaving for the average developer. Hopefully Cusp in Eclipse or something else will help.
- brlewis 19y ago
  Tell me, where's the clear winner between ruby and python? Between python and PHP? Between PHP and Perl? Between OCAML and Haskell? Plenty of languages have managed to rise in popularity through a time when you didn't know if any of your code might run on the future winner. At least with Lisp implementations you know some of your code will work with the winner. "Waiting for a clear winner" is not a reason for Lisp not to grow in popularity. Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby -- none of these emerged from the womb with a full-grown development environment. They managed to grow to the point where people wrote Eclipse plugins or what have you. Lack of a "mainstream" development environment is not a reason for Lisp not to grow in popularity.
  - 0x44 19y ago
    Unless you're implying that each Lisp interpreter is its own language, I don't think your contention really applies. If I learn Lisp on Lispworks, and go sit down at GNU CLisp, I'm not programming in a different language - I'm using a different sub-set thereof. When I sit down to a Ruby program, and then switch to a PHP script - there are fundamental differences between the two languages that transcend the library or features either provides. Ralphc's point wasn't about there being a clear winner in the dynamic language space, but that each of the languages mentioned had one canonical interpreter.
    - brlewis 19y ago
      The issue here is human decisions, not a taxonomy of programming tools. Or do you suggest that Lisp dialects diverge further? If you called them separate languages, would there be a better chance of them growing popular?
      - 0x44 19y ago
        On the contrary, I'm suggesting that Lisp dialects do not diverge as far from each other as the various dynamic languages do. That means that the idiosyncrasies each dialect has are going to be more glaring. The other dynamic languages don't (yet) have dialects, so you don't have to take the design decisions of the interpreter into consideration - after you've decided on the language. In that case, I think that there might be a better chance of a sub-set of Lisp dialects becoming popular if they were described as separate languages. It will be interesting to see how Arc develops from MzScheme, and whether or not it becomes more popular with non-Lispers.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
  - gordianknot 19y ago
    Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby are all interesting failures. They are important for their effect on languages that will last longer (Lisp, ECMAScript) though. Edit: I don't mean these are "failures" now, just that they're doomed in the long run. Does anyone think they'll be able to stand any of these languages in 2018? I don't they'll have evolved much by that point either. The older a language gets, the harder it is for it to evolve. And if it tries to make too big a leap, people simply don't go for it (PHP5, Perl 6).
stevecooperorg 19y ago
I really don't find that lisp, at least common lisp, is particularly concise. Consider lambda functions, one of those things that lisp is particularly praised for; common lisp: (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) C#3 : x=> x + 1 ruby : { |x| x + 1 } python : lambda x: x + 1 Haskell : \x -> x + 1 Just in terms of character count, CL is the longest of the lot. No, the problem with trying to get a lisp under your belt has alredy been mentioned. Compared to the alternatives; - choosing an implementation is a research project (clisp? sbcl? allegro?) - documentation is weaker - libraries are harder to find and install (ASDF vs Rubygems, Python eggs, etc.) - emacs/slime is an investment to learn - examples are few and far between - the language itself (the words, not the punctuation) is inelegant (mapcar, setq, cdadr) I've tried really hard to learn lisp, and it turns out that actually, while there may be some platonic lisp that IS great, actually programming common lisp, now, is a massive effort in struggling in the dark.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  "I've tried really hard to learn lisp, and it turns out that actually, while there may be some platonic lisp that IS great, actually programming common lisp, now, is a massive effort in struggling in the dark." The weedout process has worked its magic again ;P You usually get rewards proportional to the effort... I don't think lisp is beyond anyone's reach if they work faithfully on gaining proficiency in it for 3 months, maximum. 3 months is nothing if it makes you a much better programmer, and/or you get to use this awesome language. I think it's important to first research lisp's benefits. Of course you won't be willing to spend the necessary efforts if you're not convinced... I know I just couldn't resist the appeal of closures, macros, CLOS (multiple inheritence, multimethods, class redefinitions) the condition system (restarts in particular), generalized variables and a bunch of other fun stuff.
  - hernan7 19y ago
    Make it: 3 months full time, plus whatever amount of time is needed to become deeply conversant with all the underlying lambda calculus concepts.

by brlewis 19y ago

ralphc 19y ago

I'll throw in my 2 cents... Up until recently, one "flaw" that Lisp had that other languages didn't was one obvious best implementation. If you want to work in Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, etc. you knew where to get them, and you know they would work similarly across platforms, so programs you wrote on your Mac would work on Windows and Linux, etc. With Lisp, different implementations did the "interesting" stuff (threads, sockets, FFI, etc.) differently, and hackers didn't want to invest time learning one implementation if everyone else decided that a different one was the best. No one wants to bet on the loser (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD), so they stay away until a clear winner emerges. It looks like SBCL is becoming that best implementation, and once threads work on Windows so the web frameworks will "work", that will help greatly. Another barrier is having to learn emacs/SLIME to have a decent development environment. That is a big piece of yak shaving for the average developer. Hopefully Cusp in Eclipse or something else will help.

brlewis 19y ago
Tell me, where's the clear winner between ruby and python? Between python and PHP? Between PHP and Perl? Between OCAML and Haskell? Plenty of languages have managed to rise in popularity through a time when you didn't know if any of your code might run on the future winner. At least with Lisp implementations you know some of your code will work with the winner. "Waiting for a clear winner" is not a reason for Lisp not to grow in popularity. Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby -- none of these emerged from the womb with a full-grown development environment. They managed to grow to the point where people wrote Eclipse plugins or what have you. Lack of a "mainstream" development environment is not a reason for Lisp not to grow in popularity.
- 0x44 19y ago
  Unless you're implying that each Lisp interpreter is its own language, I don't think your contention really applies. If I learn Lisp on Lispworks, and go sit down at GNU CLisp, I'm not programming in a different language - I'm using a different sub-set thereof. When I sit down to a Ruby program, and then switch to a PHP script - there are fundamental differences between the two languages that transcend the library or features either provides. Ralphc's point wasn't about there being a clear winner in the dynamic language space, but that each of the languages mentioned had one canonical interpreter.
  - brlewis 19y ago
    The issue here is human decisions, not a taxonomy of programming tools. Or do you suggest that Lisp dialects diverge further? If you called them separate languages, would there be a better chance of them growing popular?
    - 0x44 19y ago
      On the contrary, I'm suggesting that Lisp dialects do not diverge as far from each other as the various dynamic languages do. That means that the idiosyncrasies each dialect has are going to be more glaring. The other dynamic languages don't (yet) have dialects, so you don't have to take the design decisions of the interpreter into consideration - after you've decided on the language. In that case, I think that there might be a better chance of a sub-set of Lisp dialects becoming popular if they were described as separate languages. It will be interesting to see how Arc develops from MzScheme, and whether or not it becomes more popular with non-Lispers.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
- gordianknot 19y ago
  Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby are all interesting failures. They are important for their effect on languages that will last longer (Lisp, ECMAScript) though. Edit: I don't mean these are "failures" now, just that they're doomed in the long run. Does anyone think they'll be able to stand any of these languages in 2018? I don't they'll have evolved much by that point either. The older a language gets, the harder it is for it to evolve. And if it tries to make too big a leap, people simply don't go for it (PHP5, Perl 6).

stevecooperorg 19y ago

I really don't find that lisp, at least common lisp, is particularly concise. Consider lambda functions, one of those things that lisp is particularly praised for; common lisp: (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) C#3 : x=> x + 1 ruby : { |x| x + 1 } python : lambda x: x + 1 Haskell : \x -> x + 1 Just in terms of character count, CL is the longest of the lot. No, the problem with trying to get a lisp under your belt has alredy been mentioned. Compared to the alternatives; - choosing an implementation is a research project (clisp? sbcl? allegro?) - documentation is weaker - libraries are harder to find and install (ASDF vs Rubygems, Python eggs, etc.) - emacs/slime is an investment to learn - examples are few and far between - the language itself (the words, not the punctuation) is inelegant (mapcar, setq, cdadr) I've tried really hard to learn lisp, and it turns out that actually, while there may be some platonic lisp that IS great, actually programming common lisp, now, is a massive effort in struggling in the dark.

Hexstream 19y ago
"I've tried really hard to learn lisp, and it turns out that actually, while there may be some platonic lisp that IS great, actually programming common lisp, now, is a massive effort in struggling in the dark." The weedout process has worked its magic again ;P You usually get rewards proportional to the effort... I don't think lisp is beyond anyone's reach if they work faithfully on gaining proficiency in it for 3 months, maximum. 3 months is nothing if it makes you a much better programmer, and/or you get to use this awesome language. I think it's important to first research lisp's benefits. Of course you won't be willing to spend the necessary efforts if you're not convinced... I know I just couldn't resist the appeal of closures, macros, CLOS (multiple inheritence, multimethods, class redefinitions) the condition system (restarts in particular), generalized variables and a bunch of other fun stuff.
- hernan7 19y ago
  Make it: 3 months full time, plus whatever amount of time is needed to become deeply conversant with all the underlying lambda calculus concepts.