5 ms·

I've read this book, and what I love about it is that it really brings to mind the programming books of my youth, when nobody would argue that programming shoul

I've read this book, and what I love about it is that it really brings to mind the programming books of my youth, when nobody would argue that programming should be fun. It's goofy, has bad jokes, and you learn something. Having said that, the code style seemed quite idiomatic compared to some of the other Lisp I've seen (although I'm no expert), so I wasn't sure how valuable the lessons were.

amake 9y ago
> seemed quite idiomatic I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing. Did you mean unidiomatic?
- catpolice 9y ago
  Perhaps they meant "idiosyncratic"
- omaranto 9y ago
  Maybe "idiomatic" is considered bad because it would mean the lessons are Lisp-specific and you might hope the book teaches you programming in general?
- dwringer 9y ago
  A common complaint about Lisp code in general is that programmers tend to write code that is idiosyncratic [ED: I previously used the word "idiomatic" here in reply to the OP but was conflating terms, making this post rather irrelevant but at least it provoked a discussion] (i.e. rather than looking like templated design patterns with standard names, the program is heirarchically built of modules in a domain-specific language of the programmer's own design). This is both one of Lisp's greatest strengths to those who like it, and (I think, based on comments I've seen here and elsewhere) one of the greatest reasons it doesn't have more widespread adoption.
  - mike_ivanov 9y ago
    "rather than looking like templated design patterns" - that is, the code goes straight to the point instead of being littered with incidental noise and ceremony? How that could possibly be a bad thing? Well, in certain software development subcultures ceremony might be a norm, but not in general.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Koshkin 9y ago
      From what I have seen, code that "goes straight to the point" is usually poorly thought out, is unmaintanable, has bugs, is difficult to extend to new use-cases, and the developer who wrote it is long gone.
      - hellofunk 9y ago
        That might be (perhaps) true in other languages, but that is not the point in Lisp.
        Koshkin 9y ago
        Best practices, patterns, idioms are all important no matter what language. Lisp is not special in this regard (although, I admit, Lisp developers may stick around a bit longer).
        hellofunk 9y ago
        There is a big difference between language idioms and design patterns.
        flavio81 9y ago
        >Lisp is not special in this regard In reality, yes, at least because of two differences: 1. Lisp is a significantly more powerful language, compared to most non-Lisp languages. Thus, many patterns and practices that are needed in other languages, are simply not needed at all in Lisp, or become far simpler. 2. Lisp is a "programmable programming language" where code is a "first class citizen" and can be manipulated as well as any other kind of data such as numbers. This opens a very different approach to programming, with its own, different "best practices".
  - felideon 9y ago
    I know what you are saying, but that is not what is meant by idiomatic Lisp. Not by Lispers at least. Non-idiomatic Lisp is typically written by beginners whose code looks more like the language they are accustomed to using previously. For instance, leaning heavily on a procedural style. And not just beginners, but also seasoned programmers that write object oriented Lisp more akin to static OOP. In other words, designing class hierarchies rather than protocols (using generic functions). What you describe is more of a side effect of the Bipolar Lisp Programmer[1]: > This is a BBM attitude; it works for me and I understand it. It is also the product of not needing or wanting anybody else's help to do something. I haven't read Land of Lisp yet, so I can't really comment as to whether I'd consider it idiomatic Lisp or not. (OP meant "idiosyncratic" anyway, it seems.) Not that I'd be a good judge, anyway. [1] http://www.shenlanguage.org/lambdassociates/htdocs/blog/bipolar.htm http://www.shenlanguage.org/lambdassociates/htdocs/blog/bipo...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sverige 9y ago
      God, that link and the comic strip for the Land of Lisp are both so great! I might have to try Lisp again. >Writing in C is like building a mosaic out of lentils using a tweezer and glue. I cannot describe the memories and associated feelings this evokes....
  - hellofunk 9y ago
    > rather than looking like templated design patterns Speaking about another lisp, Clojure, it is a goal that each program finds its own design pattern. That's kinda the whole idea. Design patterns can really get in the way, unless your language requires them, which some languages do (i.e. Java where everything must be an object, so OO it is, or Apple's platforms where the MVC pattern is deeply interwoven into all the APIs). Lisp in general is about exploring a particular problem using only the constraints of that problem, without concern for how different problems get solved. By contrast, design patterns are about forcing a common solution onto a range of different problems.
    - flavio81 9y ago
      >By contrast, design patterns are about forcing a common solution onto a range of different problems. This is one of the best criticisms of Design Patterns i've ever read. Great point.
    - sbov 9y ago
      > By contrast, design patterns are about forcing a common solution onto a range of different problems. I always viewed design patterns as providing a shared name for common solutions to common problems. And that forcing a common solution to a range of different problems was a misuse of them. But maybe I'm wrong.
      - bitwize 9y ago
        I like to think of design patterns as "TV Tropes for programming". The GoF probably intended their book to be taken in that spirot. But then design patterns became something that computer science students and job candidates got quizzed on...
      - kbp 9y ago
        > I always viewed design patterns as providing a shared name for common solutions to common problems. And that forcing a common solution to a range of different problems was a misuse of them. Exactly, a design pattern is just that: a pattern of design, that shows up organically after you have enough systems designed in the same language. Many of the design patterns that occur in languages like C++ and Java don't show up in Lisp because Lisp is a rather different language, but then we have our own design patterns as well, things like with- macros.
- midgetjones 9y ago
  I did, of course, mean idiosyncratic. My bad
  - dwringer 9y ago
    I fully conflated both words as well in my reply, don't feel too bad :)
  - eradicatethots 9y ago
    Of course
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
baldfat 9y ago
I really liked going through Realm of Racket with my 11 year old daughter. It pretty much is the same format. It made me miss the days of typing code from a book and hit run. (Well run never really worked then it was hours of debugging but that taught me so much)
- cujic9 9y ago
  Ha yes! Bonus points when the book is for IBM Basic, and you're using a Commodore 64. Argggggg!
  - baldfat 9y ago
    I loved it when they didn't say what basic it was for. My dad ended up meeting a author of a few of the programs and he said, "Oh I never got that basic program to ever run." My dad was like my 9 year old fix it and walked away. He was proud and mad. It took me weeks to get things fixed.
  - peatmoss 9y ago
    Childhood TRS-80 user here, can commiserate.
    - baldfat 9y ago
      I was a sol-20 kid
  - flavio81 9y ago
    LOL. I had an Atari 130XE so examples for IBM Basic, Apple ][ and Commodore didn't work either! Even worse if the examples were for the Spectrum, which had an even more peculiar dialect!
  - ansible 9y ago
    Oh yes. I had a TRS-80 Color Computer, and the BASIC dialect (though written by MS) was slightly different in some details, so I was usually translating things at least a little. Things like color and graphics were completely different from system to system.
uryga 9y ago
did you mean "idiosyncratic"?

amake 9y ago

> seemed quite idiomatic I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing. Did you mean unidiomatic?

catpolice 9y ago
Perhaps they meant "idiosyncratic"
omaranto 9y ago
Maybe "idiomatic" is considered bad because it would mean the lessons are Lisp-specific and you might hope the book teaches you programming in general?
dwringer 9y ago
A common complaint about Lisp code in general is that programmers tend to write code that is idiosyncratic [ED: I previously used the word "idiomatic" here in reply to the OP but was conflating terms, making this post rather irrelevant but at least it provoked a discussion] (i.e. rather than looking like templated design patterns with standard names, the program is heirarchically built of modules in a domain-specific language of the programmer's own design). This is both one of Lisp's greatest strengths to those who like it, and (I think, based on comments I've seen here and elsewhere) one of the greatest reasons it doesn't have more widespread adoption.
- mike_ivanov 9y ago
  "rather than looking like templated design patterns" - that is, the code goes straight to the point instead of being littered with incidental noise and ceremony? How that could possibly be a bad thing? Well, in certain software development subcultures ceremony might be a norm, but not in general.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    From what I have seen, code that "goes straight to the point" is usually poorly thought out, is unmaintanable, has bugs, is difficult to extend to new use-cases, and the developer who wrote it is long gone.
    - hellofunk 9y ago
      That might be (perhaps) true in other languages, but that is not the point in Lisp.
      - Koshkin 9y ago
        Best practices, patterns, idioms are all important no matter what language. Lisp is not special in this regard (although, I admit, Lisp developers may stick around a bit longer).
        hellofunk 9y ago
        There is a big difference between language idioms and design patterns.
        flavio81 9y ago
        >Lisp is not special in this regard In reality, yes, at least because of two differences: 1. Lisp is a significantly more powerful language, compared to most non-Lisp languages. Thus, many patterns and practices that are needed in other languages, are simply not needed at all in Lisp, or become far simpler. 2. Lisp is a "programmable programming language" where code is a "first class citizen" and can be manipulated as well as any other kind of data such as numbers. This opens a very different approach to programming, with its own, different "best practices".
- felideon 9y ago
  I know what you are saying, but that is not what is meant by idiomatic Lisp. Not by Lispers at least. Non-idiomatic Lisp is typically written by beginners whose code looks more like the language they are accustomed to using previously. For instance, leaning heavily on a procedural style. And not just beginners, but also seasoned programmers that write object oriented Lisp more akin to static OOP. In other words, designing class hierarchies rather than protocols (using generic functions). What you describe is more of a side effect of the Bipolar Lisp Programmer[1]: > This is a BBM attitude; it works for me and I understand it. It is also the product of not needing or wanting anybody else's help to do something. I haven't read Land of Lisp yet, so I can't really comment as to whether I'd consider it idiomatic Lisp or not. (OP meant "idiosyncratic" anyway, it seems.) Not that I'd be a good judge, anyway. [1] http://www.shenlanguage.org/lambdassociates/htdocs/blog/bipolar.htm http://www.shenlanguage.org/lambdassociates/htdocs/blog/bipo...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sverige 9y ago
    God, that link and the comic strip for the Land of Lisp are both so great! I might have to try Lisp again. >Writing in C is like building a mosaic out of lentils using a tweezer and glue. I cannot describe the memories and associated feelings this evokes....
- hellofunk 9y ago
  > rather than looking like templated design patterns Speaking about another lisp, Clojure, it is a goal that each program finds its own design pattern. That's kinda the whole idea. Design patterns can really get in the way, unless your language requires them, which some languages do (i.e. Java where everything must be an object, so OO it is, or Apple's platforms where the MVC pattern is deeply interwoven into all the APIs). Lisp in general is about exploring a particular problem using only the constraints of that problem, without concern for how different problems get solved. By contrast, design patterns are about forcing a common solution onto a range of different problems.
  - flavio81 9y ago
    >By contrast, design patterns are about forcing a common solution onto a range of different problems. This is one of the best criticisms of Design Patterns i've ever read. Great point.
  - sbov 9y ago
    > By contrast, design patterns are about forcing a common solution onto a range of different problems. I always viewed design patterns as providing a shared name for common solutions to common problems. And that forcing a common solution to a range of different problems was a misuse of them. But maybe I'm wrong.
    - bitwize 9y ago
      I like to think of design patterns as "TV Tropes for programming". The GoF probably intended their book to be taken in that spirot. But then design patterns became something that computer science students and job candidates got quizzed on...
    - kbp 9y ago
      > I always viewed design patterns as providing a shared name for common solutions to common problems. And that forcing a common solution to a range of different problems was a misuse of them. Exactly, a design pattern is just that: a pattern of design, that shows up organically after you have enough systems designed in the same language. Many of the design patterns that occur in languages like C++ and Java don't show up in Lisp because Lisp is a rather different language, but then we have our own design patterns as well, things like with- macros.
midgetjones 9y ago
I did, of course, mean idiosyncratic. My bad
- dwringer 9y ago
  I fully conflated both words as well in my reply, don't feel too bad :)
- eradicatethots 9y ago
  Of course
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

baldfat 9y ago

I really liked going through Realm of Racket with my 11 year old daughter. It pretty much is the same format. It made me miss the days of typing code from a book and hit run. (Well run never really worked then it was hours of debugging but that taught me so much)

cujic9 9y ago
Ha yes! Bonus points when the book is for IBM Basic, and you're using a Commodore 64. Argggggg!
- baldfat 9y ago
  I loved it when they didn't say what basic it was for. My dad ended up meeting a author of a few of the programs and he said, "Oh I never got that basic program to ever run." My dad was like my 9 year old fix it and walked away. He was proud and mad. It took me weeks to get things fixed.
- peatmoss 9y ago
  Childhood TRS-80 user here, can commiserate.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    I was a sol-20 kid
- flavio81 9y ago
  LOL. I had an Atari 130XE so examples for IBM Basic, Apple ][ and Commodore didn't work either! Even worse if the examples were for the Spectrum, which had an even more peculiar dialect!
- ansible 9y ago
  Oh yes. I had a TRS-80 Color Computer, and the BASIC dialect (though written by MS) was slightly different in some details, so I was usually translating things at least a little. Things like color and graphics were completely different from system to system.

uryga 9y ago

did you mean "idiosyncratic"?