5 ms·

"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 proble

"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?
- stevecooperorg 19y ago
  "Sorry :(" Nah, that's ok. ;) CL isn't really for me, now. As I said, common lisp, right now, is too much work. Who knows what Arc 2020 will be like? ;)
jimbokun 19y ago
"Otherwise, the features you mentioned are basically available elsewhere; Visual Basic has closures. C++ has multiple inheritance. Python has multimethods. Ruby has class redefinitions." Exactly. Common Lisp is close to a superset of the features of other programming languages. Even in cases where Common Lisp lacks a feature, if it's something that can be expressed by changing syntax, macros can get you pretty close. I remember a thread on comp.lang.lisp where several people had a go at adding pattern matching to Common Lisp, for example, and were able to get a pretty long way towards that goal in a short amount of time. Another example: seems like half of the Lisp books out there present an implementation of Prolog in Lisp.
tl 19y ago
According to Larry Wall: "use Lingua::Perligata; If you allow a language to mutate its own grammar within a lexical scope, how do you keep track of that cleanly? Perl 5 discovered one really bad way to do it, namely source filters, but even so we ended up with Perl dialects such as Perligata and Klingon. What would it be like if we actually did it right? Doing it right involves treating the evolution of the language as a pragmatic scope, or as a set of pragmatic scopes. You have to be able to name your dialect, kind of like a URL, so there needs to be a universal root language, and ways of warping that universal root language into whatever dialect you like. This is actually near the heart of the vision for Perl 6. We don't see Perl 6 as a single language, but as the root for a family of related languages. As a family, there are shared cultural values that can be passed back and forth among sibling languages as well as to the descendants." I'd say Perl is getting comparable macro-level functionality. Perl also has one likable feature that is less present in lisp; different idioms look different. When I hear Paul Graham talk of (a i) being an array index or a function call, I start to think about concepts like Hungarian notation to keep my code more readable. A uniform syntax structure isn't required for macros.
- tokipin 19y ago
  > "so there needs to be a universal root language, and ways of warping that universal root language into whatever dialect you like." sounds like XML > "A uniform syntax structure isn't required for macros." it makes it a lot easier! i don't understand what you mean by 'pragmatic scopes.' does perl 6 have macro functionality?

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?

stevecooperorg 19y ago
"Sorry :(" Nah, that's ok. ;) CL isn't really for me, now. As I said, common lisp, right now, is too much work. Who knows what Arc 2020 will be like? ;)

jimbokun 19y ago

"Otherwise, the features you mentioned are basically available elsewhere; Visual Basic has closures. C++ has multiple inheritance. Python has multimethods. Ruby has class redefinitions." Exactly. Common Lisp is close to a superset of the features of other programming languages. Even in cases where Common Lisp lacks a feature, if it's something that can be expressed by changing syntax, macros can get you pretty close. I remember a thread on comp.lang.lisp where several people had a go at adding pattern matching to Common Lisp, for example, and were able to get a pretty long way towards that goal in a short amount of time. Another example: seems like half of the Lisp books out there present an implementation of Prolog in Lisp.

tl 19y ago

According to Larry Wall: "use Lingua::Perligata; If you allow a language to mutate its own grammar within a lexical scope, how do you keep track of that cleanly? Perl 5 discovered one really bad way to do it, namely source filters, but even so we ended up with Perl dialects such as Perligata and Klingon. What would it be like if we actually did it right? Doing it right involves treating the evolution of the language as a pragmatic scope, or as a set of pragmatic scopes. You have to be able to name your dialect, kind of like a URL, so there needs to be a universal root language, and ways of warping that universal root language into whatever dialect you like. This is actually near the heart of the vision for Perl 6. We don't see Perl 6 as a single language, but as the root for a family of related languages. As a family, there are shared cultural values that can be passed back and forth among sibling languages as well as to the descendants." I'd say Perl is getting comparable macro-level functionality. Perl also has one likable feature that is less present in lisp; different idioms look different. When I hear Paul Graham talk of (a i) being an array index or a function call, I start to think about concepts like Hungarian notation to keep my code more readable. A uniform syntax structure isn't required for macros.

tokipin 19y ago
> "so there needs to be a universal root language, and ways of warping that universal root language into whatever dialect you like." sounds like XML > "A uniform syntax structure isn't required for macros." it makes it a lot easier! i don't understand what you mean by 'pragmatic scopes.' does perl 6 have macro functionality?