4 ms·
So me being entrepreneurial-minded, I read this as: He was no good for the common programming languages of the day used by many employers. But if he would have
by SlowBro 9y ago
So me being entrepreneurial-minded, I read this as: He was no good for the common programming languages of the day used by many employers. But if he would have struck out on his own, he would have crushed the competition who were writing page after page of code when his own one page would do just fine.
Disclaimer: Not a Lisper
- stevedonovan 9y agoCf. Paul Graham's 'secret weapon' essay.
- SlowBro 9y agoWow, looks like he concluded exactly what I concluded. Cool essay. I'm into Python but I may give Lisp a whack some day. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
- sahil-kang 9y agoYou might consider starting off with this classic: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ I should point out, though, SICP uses the Scheme dialect of Lisp. If you’re interested in Common Lisp, then maybe try: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
- Jtsummers 9y agoExcept by the end of the post he finds programmers in those “inferior” languages (by measure of verbosity which was a main criteria he used to rule them out for himself) were keeping up with him. And some, like the Perl coders, were faster than him on some tasks.
- SlowBro 9y agoThank you, I only skimmed the post.
- SlowBro 9y agoI don't understand why my comments were downvoted twice. At least Paul Graham (apparently) agrees.