3 ms·

Oleg has worked in other non-Lisp languages, notably members of the ML family. I know that you want to be all pro-Lisp and such, but it's just another family of

Oleg has worked in other non-Lisp languages, notably members of the ML family. I know that you want to be all pro-Lisp and such, but it's just another family of languages, really; there's nothing magical or special about them. All compilers use an anamorphic parser, a hylomorphic reducer, a paramorphic optimizer, and a katamorphic instruction selector. It's not about what the language provides, but about what the language doesn't require. Lisps can be low-ceremony, but they're not the only ones. Trees might be universal data structures, but they're not the only ones.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I'm not saying Lisps are unique in this regard, but I am saying that complaints that I see in today's HN discussion most likely stem from lack of exposure to that kind of programming. In the mainstream world, "language" and "compiler" are products. In Lisp world, they're no different than functions and classes. Out of language families providing this level of capability, Lisps are probably closest to mainstream, and that's because of Clojure.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  "In Lisp world, they're no different than functions and classes." Haskell may be similar in this regard, due to the popularity of parser combinators? (Or were years ago when I last looked, don't know if they are still popular or widely used tool in that community.)
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  In the mainstream world, we study a single category of types and logic at a time. There is an ∞-category Tomb whose objects are languages and arrows are compilers; we don't talk about it much. Lisp is certainly not somehow an arena where we transcend computing concepts; it's a lightweight syntax for untyped lambda calculus, at best. A single topos, not the entire multiverse of topoi. I could restate your entire argument for ANS FORTH and I'm not sure whether it would lose anything. That should clue you into the idea that your argument is really about the age of the language family, and the corresponding maturity of philosophy and reasoning around members of the family. The only thing that Lisp makes easy is the parser, by dint of reusing the host Lisp's s-expression reader. The most trivial and surface-level part of a compiler, really.
phadej 7y ago
Are you confusing Oleg Grenrus (OPA) and Oleg Kiselyov (http://okmij.org/ftp/ http://okmij.org/ftp/)?
- lidHanteyk 7y ago
  Wow. There's more than one of them. Today, I learned something. Thank you.
voldacar 7y ago
Hmm, does it have zygohistomorphic prepromorphisms too?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

I'm not saying Lisps are unique in this regard, but I am saying that complaints that I see in today's HN discussion most likely stem from lack of exposure to that kind of programming. In the mainstream world, "language" and "compiler" are products. In Lisp world, they're no different than functions and classes. Out of language families providing this level of capability, Lisps are probably closest to mainstream, and that's because of Clojure.

jimbokun 7y ago
"In Lisp world, they're no different than functions and classes." Haskell may be similar in this regard, due to the popularity of parser combinators? (Or were years ago when I last looked, don't know if they are still popular or widely used tool in that community.)
lidHanteyk 7y ago
In the mainstream world, we study a single category of types and logic at a time. There is an ∞-category Tomb whose objects are languages and arrows are compilers; we don't talk about it much. Lisp is certainly not somehow an arena where we transcend computing concepts; it's a lightweight syntax for untyped lambda calculus, at best. A single topos, not the entire multiverse of topoi. I could restate your entire argument for ANS FORTH and I'm not sure whether it would lose anything. That should clue you into the idea that your argument is really about the age of the language family, and the corresponding maturity of philosophy and reasoning around members of the family. The only thing that Lisp makes easy is the parser, by dint of reusing the host Lisp's s-expression reader. The most trivial and surface-level part of a compiler, really.

phadej 7y ago

Are you confusing Oleg Grenrus (OPA) and Oleg Kiselyov (http://okmij.org/ftp/ http://okmij.org/ftp/)?

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Wow. There's more than one of them. Today, I learned something. Thank you.

voldacar 7y ago

Hmm, does it have zygohistomorphic prepromorphisms too?