3 ms·

Hmm, I am not particular convinced by the example. How is this different from developing on say JVM, using Kotlin and finding a library providing DSL for HTML?

Hmm, I am not particular convinced by the example. How is this different from developing on say JVM, using Kotlin and finding a library providing DSL for HTML? I was hoping for practical things that fundamentally impossible to describe concisely in non-lisp languages. I wouldn't dare to challenge that lisps tend to produce concise code but being able to write 10x less code as basis and 100-1000x less on any regular basis seems too good to be true.

lisper 6y ago
> 100-1000x less on any regular basis I didn't say I could get 100-1000x on a regular basis. What I said was: > There are domains in which I can get 100x or 1000x improvements Domains like that exist, but they are outliers. Normal improvement is 10x. > I was hoping for practical things that fundamentally impossible to describe concisely in non-lisp languages. Most programming languages are Turing-complete so nothing is "fundamentally impossible" to express in any of them. The thing that is fundamentally impossible in most non-Lisp languages is to extend the language with new syntax and control constructs within the language itself. It is of course trivial to embed a Lisp interpreter within any language, and that will let you do Lisp-y things within that language. But then your performance will suck, which is why no one does that despite the fact that it is theoretically possible. It is not so much about what is possible as it is about the ways in which your language molds your thought processes. For a C programmer, embedding a DSL is an esoteric advanced technique. For a Lisp programmer, it's as easy and therefore as common as writing a function.
- bbbobbb 6y ago
  > I didn't say I could get 100-1000x on a regular basis. What I said was: I know, sorry for misrepresenting that. I just assumed that this happens often enough for you to mention it. I would be happy with any random 1000x improvement or two you've encountered over the years (imagine something like Java/Kotlin baseline for comparison). I don't really buy the regular 10x improvement either though (as in something achieved by other means than different form of formatting). Happy to be proven wrong though, my lisp experience is limited to some clojure. > Most programming languages are Turing-complete so nothing is "fundamentally impossible" to express in any of them Sure, that's why I said "fundamentally impossible to describe concisely", as in something you can only express concisely in lisp (because of prefix notation? macros? I don't know) and it is bound to be 10x verbose mess in a c-like lang.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > I would be happy with any random 1000x improvement or two you've encountered over the years I already provided two examples. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980487 "Two which I have personally worked in are autonomous spacecraft control and chip design." > I don't really buy the regular 10x improvement either though (as in something achieved by other means than different form of formatting). Why exclude a "different form of formatting"? That phrase is sufficiently vague that it could potentially refer to just about anything. > something you can only express concisely in lisp (because of prefix notation? macros? I don't know) and it is bound to be 10x verbose mess in a c-like lang. You are still fundamentally misunderstanding the claim. It is not that there is anything that can be done in Lisp that could not in principle be done in a c-like language with a comparable number of keystrokes. The history of c-like languages is one of continual refinement and adding features that do precisely this. The difference is that in Lisp if you need a feature that isn't already there you don't need to wait 30 years for standards committees and compiler writers to catch up. All you need to do is take ten minutes to write a macro.

lisper 6y ago

> 100-1000x less on any regular basis I didn't say I could get 100-1000x on a regular basis. What I said was: > There are domains in which I can get 100x or 1000x improvements Domains like that exist, but they are outliers. Normal improvement is 10x. > I was hoping for practical things that fundamentally impossible to describe concisely in non-lisp languages. Most programming languages are Turing-complete so nothing is "fundamentally impossible" to express in any of them. The thing that is fundamentally impossible in most non-Lisp languages is to extend the language with new syntax and control constructs within the language itself. It is of course trivial to embed a Lisp interpreter within any language, and that will let you do Lisp-y things within that language. But then your performance will suck, which is why no one does that despite the fact that it is theoretically possible. It is not so much about what is possible as it is about the ways in which your language molds your thought processes. For a C programmer, embedding a DSL is an esoteric advanced technique. For a Lisp programmer, it's as easy and therefore as common as writing a function.

bbbobbb 6y ago
> I didn't say I could get 100-1000x on a regular basis. What I said was: I know, sorry for misrepresenting that. I just assumed that this happens often enough for you to mention it. I would be happy with any random 1000x improvement or two you've encountered over the years (imagine something like Java/Kotlin baseline for comparison). I don't really buy the regular 10x improvement either though (as in something achieved by other means than different form of formatting). Happy to be proven wrong though, my lisp experience is limited to some clojure. > Most programming languages are Turing-complete so nothing is "fundamentally impossible" to express in any of them Sure, that's why I said "fundamentally impossible to describe concisely", as in something you can only express concisely in lisp (because of prefix notation? macros? I don't know) and it is bound to be 10x verbose mess in a c-like lang.
- lisper 6y ago
  > I would be happy with any random 1000x improvement or two you've encountered over the years I already provided two examples. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22980487 "Two which I have personally worked in are autonomous spacecraft control and chip design." > I don't really buy the regular 10x improvement either though (as in something achieved by other means than different form of formatting). Why exclude a "different form of formatting"? That phrase is sufficiently vague that it could potentially refer to just about anything. > something you can only express concisely in lisp (because of prefix notation? macros? I don't know) and it is bound to be 10x verbose mess in a c-like lang. You are still fundamentally misunderstanding the claim. It is not that there is anything that can be done in Lisp that could not in principle be done in a c-like language with a comparable number of keystrokes. The history of c-like languages is one of continual refinement and adding features that do precisely this. The difference is that in Lisp if you need a feature that isn't already there you don't need to wait 30 years for standards committees and compiler writers to catch up. All you need to do is take ten minutes to write a macro.