3 ms·

>> Compared to Haskell, Lisp is a big hack. We're being trolled, right? No substantive material here, just the assertion that building a minimal Lisp is worth

by ihodes 16y ago

>> Compared to Haskell, Lisp is a big hack. We're being trolled, right? No substantive material here, just the assertion that building a minimal Lisp is worthless. If you really want to…what? Provide value? Do something worthwhile?…then build an entire language, he says. I'm sorry, but I'll write my "hello world!" program as an MVP and learn what I can from it. If I want to become a pro at PLs, then maybe I'll build an entire language. It's not harmful. Hair won't grow on my palms. Let me experiment.

yan 16y ago
While the last post from his blog certainly had the air of elitism to it that made it a huge turn off, I actually really enjoyed this one and disagree that it's not substantive. I don't think he claims that it's harmful on the absolute, he's simply noting the scope of evolution in the Lisp family of languages and the trade offs designers made. Implementing a simple 200 line lisp interpreter is a fine evening or weekend project, but macro expansion time and bindings are something that actual Lisp developers actually think about. (Or at least I have, as I've been learning CL). Shrug. That post contributed to me better understanding the idea of Lisp and for that I think it deserves my upvote.
- ihodes 16y ago
  He said that it was harmful to build a simple Lisp interp/compiler. Not only that, but apparently he cast off the entire Lisp family without anything other than a "Haskell is just better, kthnx". Seems like a troll in the vein of the previous one, just more elaborate.
  - freakwit 16y ago
    Follow the link on "Compared to Haskell, Lisp is a big hack." - http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-lisp-is-big-hack-and-haskell-is.html http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-lisp-is-big-hack-... - for a more detailled post.
protomyth 16y ago
As a writing technique, saying "someone should do steps 1, 2, 3 to do a proper X, but X is crap compared to Y" tends to cast doubts on your advice on X. It's one of those off hand remarks that tend to get stuck in the craw of the person reading it who likes X.

by ihodes 16y ago

yan 16y ago

While the last post from his blog certainly had the air of elitism to it that made it a huge turn off, I actually really enjoyed this one and disagree that it's not substantive. I don't think he claims that it's harmful on the absolute, he's simply noting the scope of evolution in the Lisp family of languages and the trade offs designers made. Implementing a simple 200 line lisp interpreter is a fine evening or weekend project, but macro expansion time and bindings are something that actual Lisp developers actually think about. (Or at least I have, as I've been learning CL). Shrug. That post contributed to me better understanding the idea of Lisp and for that I think it deserves my upvote.

ihodes 16y ago
He said that it was harmful to build a simple Lisp interp/compiler. Not only that, but apparently he cast off the entire Lisp family without anything other than a "Haskell is just better, kthnx". Seems like a troll in the vein of the previous one, just more elaborate.
- freakwit 16y ago
  Follow the link on "Compared to Haskell, Lisp is a big hack." - http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-lisp-is-big-hack-and-haskell-is.html http://axisofeval.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-lisp-is-big-hack-... - for a more detailled post.

protomyth 16y ago

As a writing technique, saying "someone should do steps 1, 2, 3 to do a proper X, but X is crap compared to Y" tends to cast doubts on your advice on X. It's one of those off hand remarks that tend to get stuck in the craw of the person reading it who likes X.