5 ms·

"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, no

"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.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  You're saying nobody can become proficient (not "deeply conversant") in lisp in 3 months because I can't become deeply conversant in lambda calculus in 3 months?! nobody, proficient, lisp. I, deeply conversant, lambda calculus. You're comparing apples and oranges. I learned lisp (pretty deeply, I'd qualify myself as intermediate then and now) in what... 5 or 6 months? And I was alone. And I didn't know emacs. With some coaching and pointers I'm pretty sure I could have made it in 4. Aren't you happy?
  - hernan7 19y ago
    Well, we have 2 data points now. I guess we can agree that it's harder to learn than Python :-) For what it's worth, I think learning Lisp is useful for getting (re)acquainted with lambda calculus if nothing else.
    - tokipin 19y ago
      lisp doesn't strike me as a difficult-to-learn language. it actually seems the easiest of them all, definitely not harder than python to pick up. c++ is at the other end
stevecooperorg 19y ago
"The weedout process has worked its magic again ;P" Please don't call me a weed. You point out that the more effort you expend, the better you get. The problem is the rate of reward. Getting a productive lisp environment is hard work. Competing implementations, sometimes-compatible libraries, very little documentation -- these are things that make lisp, holistically, hard to adopt. Every other production language makes it easier to get to the programming. I can't think of a worse-supported production language than lisp. Also, the benefits you mention are either not that uncommon, or that valuable. The only thing lisp has as a unique feature is it's macro system, thanks to it's syntax. It's the only thing that can't be adapted straight into another language. Otherwise, the features you mentioned are basically available elsewhere; Visual Basic has closures. C++ has multiple inheritance. Python has multimethods. Ruby has class redefinitions. The thing is, I wanted to believe. I stocked up my library with PCL, SICP, the little schemer, and On Lisp. I learned emacs. I stuggled with asdf. What I found, though, did not seem to live up to the promise of a hidden pearl.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  "Please don't call me a weed." Sorry :( "You point out that the more effort you expend, the better you get. The problem is the rate of reward. Getting a productive lisp environment is hard work. Competing implementations, sometimes-compatible libraries, very little documentation -- these are things that make lisp, holistically, hard to adopt. Every other production language makes it easier to get to the programming. I can't think of a worse-supported production language than lisp." I agree. "Also, the benefits you mention are either not that uncommon, or that valuable. The only thing lisp has as a unique feature is it's macro system, thanks to it's syntax. It's the only thing that can't be adapted straight into another language. Otherwise, the features you mentioned are basically available elsewhere; Visual Basic has closures. C++ has multiple inheritance. Python has multimethods. Ruby has class redefinitions." Well, it's uncommon and valuable to have all of them in a coherent language. Especially since they're pretty orthogonal features that complement eachother well. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. "The thing is, I wanted to believe. I stocked up my library with PCL, SICP, the little schemer, and On Lisp. I learned emacs. I stuggled with asdf. What I found, though, did not seem to live up to the promise of a hidden pearl." I'm sorry that you've come to the conclusion lisp is not right for you. Maybe in a couple years you can try again and most implementation/library/documentation/etc issues will be resolved?
jmtulloss 19y ago
I would take 3 months to learn a new language, but then my startup would be dead. I picked up Python in a day. I'm quite proficient at it a year later. A simple syntax + a great standard library is the best way to get things done, if not the best way to learn to write software.

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.

Hexstream 19y ago
You're saying nobody can become proficient (not "deeply conversant") in lisp in 3 months because I can't become deeply conversant in lambda calculus in 3 months?! nobody, proficient, lisp. I, deeply conversant, lambda calculus. You're comparing apples and oranges. I learned lisp (pretty deeply, I'd qualify myself as intermediate then and now) in what... 5 or 6 months? And I was alone. And I didn't know emacs. With some coaching and pointers I'm pretty sure I could have made it in 4. Aren't you happy?
- hernan7 19y ago
  Well, we have 2 data points now. I guess we can agree that it's harder to learn than Python :-) For what it's worth, I think learning Lisp is useful for getting (re)acquainted with lambda calculus if nothing else.
  - tokipin 19y ago
    lisp doesn't strike me as a difficult-to-learn language. it actually seems the easiest of them all, definitely not harder than python to pick up. c++ is at the other end

stevecooperorg 19y ago

"The weedout process has worked its magic again ;P" Please don't call me a weed. You point out that the more effort you expend, the better you get. The problem is the rate of reward. Getting a productive lisp environment is hard work. Competing implementations, sometimes-compatible libraries, very little documentation -- these are things that make lisp, holistically, hard to adopt. Every other production language makes it easier to get to the programming. I can't think of a worse-supported production language than lisp. Also, the benefits you mention are either not that uncommon, or that valuable. The only thing lisp has as a unique feature is it's macro system, thanks to it's syntax. It's the only thing that can't be adapted straight into another language. Otherwise, the features you mentioned are basically available elsewhere; Visual Basic has closures. C++ has multiple inheritance. Python has multimethods. Ruby has class redefinitions. The thing is, I wanted to believe. I stocked up my library with PCL, SICP, the little schemer, and On Lisp. I learned emacs. I stuggled with asdf. What I found, though, did not seem to live up to the promise of a hidden pearl.

Hexstream 19y ago
"Please don't call me a weed." Sorry :( "You point out that the more effort you expend, the better you get. The problem is the rate of reward. Getting a productive lisp environment is hard work. Competing implementations, sometimes-compatible libraries, very little documentation -- these are things that make lisp, holistically, hard to adopt. Every other production language makes it easier to get to the programming. I can't think of a worse-supported production language than lisp." I agree. "Also, the benefits you mention are either not that uncommon, or that valuable. The only thing lisp has as a unique feature is it's macro system, thanks to it's syntax. It's the only thing that can't be adapted straight into another language. Otherwise, the features you mentioned are basically available elsewhere; Visual Basic has closures. C++ has multiple inheritance. Python has multimethods. Ruby has class redefinitions." Well, it's uncommon and valuable to have all of them in a coherent language. Especially since they're pretty orthogonal features that complement eachother well. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. "The thing is, I wanted to believe. I stocked up my library with PCL, SICP, the little schemer, and On Lisp. I learned emacs. I stuggled with asdf. What I found, though, did not seem to live up to the promise of a hidden pearl." I'm sorry that you've come to the conclusion lisp is not right for you. Maybe in a couple years you can try again and most implementation/library/documentation/etc issues will be resolved?

jmtulloss 19y ago

I would take 3 months to learn a new language, but then my startup would be dead. I picked up Python in a day. I'm quite proficient at it a year later. A simple syntax + a great standard library is the best way to get things done, if not the best way to learn to write software.