7 ms·

I seriously don’t get why lisp is so popular on HN, it’s basically unreadable to very most of developers. It’s an ivory tower.

fetbaffe 6y ago
I think you answered your own question.
- dirtnugget 6y ago
  There is no good reason to use an esoteric language in production except in order to make yourself irreplaceable.
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    And that’s the epitome of selfishness
    - dirtnugget 6y ago
      Remember Rick: https://link.medium.com/iRs4xvGXK6 https://link.medium.com/iRs4xvGXK6
      - bluefox 6y ago
        Here you go https://plaster.tymoon.eu/view/678 https://plaster.tymoon.eu/view/678
  - capableweb 6y ago
    I wouldn't say Common Lisp is a esoteric language. Esoteric makes me think Brainfuck and other similar languages. Common Lisp and lisps in general are languages you can be productive in, in a "building a product" sense, which you cannot say about most esoteric languages.
    - dirtnugget 6y ago
      The author himself says it’s esoteric
      - lispm 6y ago
        He didn't. He wrote: 'Contrary to popular opinion, Lisp is an incredibly practical language for building production systems.'
        dirtnugget 6y ago
        Please read the dam article: "We’ve built an esoteric application (even by Lisp standards)"
        lispm 6y ago
        I've read it. It says: 'We’ve built an esoteric application (even by Lisp standards)' The application was considered by the author to be esoteric in 2015, not the programming language. Quote: "Our Lisp services are conceptually a classical AI application that operates on huge piles of knowledge created by linguists and researchers. It’s mostly a CPU-bound program, and it is one of the biggest consumers of computing resources in our network." The application is the compute core of a cloud-based grammar checker with lots of complex lingustic knowledge, which generates a lot of processing load. And "(even by Lisp standards)" just means that there are other applications in the Natural Language Processing domain, which were written in Lisp, like software to do machine translation between language or text content checking systems for technical documents.
    - dirtnugget 6y ago
      Also, if you’re really willing to go into it you could be productive in Brainfuck. Doesn’t mean it applies to the general crowd.
      - justbaker 6y ago
        It’s not a good comparison at all. Learning lisp or understanding it is a good base knowledge regardless of your primarily language. It’s not a language that’s truly esoteric and difficult to reason about by nature. Metaprogramming/macros can be difficult for those inexperienced, but not impossible. Esoteric languages are often created to either use unfamiliar syntax compared to common languages or unfamiliar paradigms to those. In the end, a lot of things are very similar in nature with esoteric languages, just a very different way, with syntax that’s not as readable as common languages. Lisp is certainly readable and easy to grin even if you have little knowledge of the language
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't do programming language flamewars on HN. They're tedious.
  - pritovido 6y ago
    You are ignorant of reality, and the first thing that you ignore is that you are ignorant. With Lisp you don't even need to write lisp code. You can write java, c++,c, swift code... using lisp. That is , you can write lisp code without people realizing you are writing lisp code. The only thing they will notice is that your code looks almost too perfect, too well formatted and justified, are extremely productive and never make mistakes.
    - potta_coffee 6y ago
      How can one write C for example using lisp? Are you talking about compiling to C?
      - lispm 6y ago
        Sometimes people write Lisp code and use translators to C or C++. Some of that code then will be maintained in C / C++. Some of these tools were custom developed, but there existed also specialized Lisp to C translators, which produced 'maintainable' code. For example the first version of the .net garbage collector was written in Common Lisp and then translated to C++. Since then it was maintained and enhanced in the C++ version. https://web.archive.org/web/20150307034829/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/patrick_dussud/archive/2006/11/21/how-it-all-started-aka-the-birth-of-the-clr.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20150307034829/http://blogs.msdn...
        potta_coffee 6y ago
        Interesting, I was not aware of this, thank you.
  - erik_seaberg 6y ago
    Languages have strengths and weaknesses. Learning the right language to express a solution is easier than doing it the hard way in the wrong language just because you happen to know it.
  - Redoubts 6y ago
    There's also onanism.
  - mapcars 6y ago
    Erm, Lisps were used back in time for many production systems when C++ wasn't even started. Looks like your definition of esoteric and production is based on couple of years of cheap CS courses.
    - bitwize 6y ago
      Oxford's definition of esoteric: "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." Today, C++ is a dominant programming language. Lisp is only used in niche applications. Therefore, it is likely only to be understood by a small number of people with specialized knowledge -- hence, it is esoteric.
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        Upon conception it was neither "intended" nor "likely" "to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest" and it is still not intended that way nor likely, that only few people _can_ understand it. It is just that people choose not to take time and understand it. I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from a definition of esoteric, that is without context anyway, taken from a natural language dictionary.
      - mapcars 6y ago
        >Lisp is only used in niche applications Which niche btw?
DoreenMichele 6y ago
HN is written in Lisp. So anyone interested in cloning HN, better understanding HN, etc, would have reason to be interested in reading up on it, even if it's not something they work with normally. Humans being human, I would think it strange if a forum written in Lisp failed to have some sort of pro-Lisp bias.
egl2020 6y ago
You're completely right, there's nothing for you in lisp. Nothing to see here. Just move on.
matvore 6y ago
> it’s basically unreadable to very most of developers The ubiquity of parenthesis has a purpose - it lets you treat code as data. Your argument only makes sense if syntax choice were 100% based on taste. But it's not (simplicity of syntax brings with it practical features), so it's great that some people are exploring other options. And it's not intrinsically less readable than say, something like: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.3/libstdc++/api/a01115_source.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.3/libstdc++/api/a0111...
- doublesCs 6y ago
  > The ubiquity of parenthesis has a purpose - it lets you treat code as data. Your argument only makes sense if syntax choice were 100% based on taste. But it's not (simplicity of syntax brings with it practical features), so it's great that some people are exploring other options. Are you sure? Plenty of languages[1,2] allow you to treat code as data and they don't need that many parenthesis. [1] https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/ast.html https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/ast.html [2] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/metaprogramming/index.html https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/metaprogramming/inde...
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    That's not code as data, that's parsed code as data. julia> :(a + b*c + 1) == Meta.parse("a + b*c + 1") == Expr(:call, :+, :a, Expr(:call, :*, :b, :c), 1) true Why not just use a single representation (+ a (* b c) 1) ?
    - doublesCs 6y ago
      > That's not code as data, that's parsed code as data. I would say: you can execute it, therefore it's code. What am I missing? > Why not just use a single representation (+ a (* b c) 1) ? Are you saying you don't like the default print? You can write a println method for type Expr which prints it any way you want. Seems like a miniscule thing to nitpick.
pritovido 6y ago
I will explain it for you. Lisp is hard to master, like playing the violin, but if you master it you can get enormous rewards. Other languages are more like "playing guitar hero", most of the work is done for you and it it way easier to learn. HN is like a musician network but for programmers. It attracts lots of people around the world that master lisp like musicians master an instrument. I will tell you about myself, I had a lisp master that did teach me that what had taken me weeks in c, c++ and python code he could do it in lisp in minutes. As I saw this man "play his instrument" it was obvious that if I wanted to be a good programmer I should master it myself. Because I had this master teaching me, I could learn it fast. The "secret" of Lisp is that you can automate your code writing, making you tens or hundred of times more capable with your code. "Ivory tower" means it is not related to reality. Lisp is very real, like violins are real.
- andi999 6y ago
  Thats the story beeing told. Since I havent seen it, my critical mind starts to think, that this is actually a myth. Do you know of any published (in the sense one can reas the code) examples that show this claim (and the reddit v1 is not such an example) (Of course anybody can chime in, it should be actually easy, if the claim that here the experts are lingering around)
- avalys 6y ago
  Could you give me an example of a real-world software engineering task which takes “weeks” in Python and minutes in Lisp?
  - srean 6y ago
    Not weeks to minutes, but still, try writing an Airlines booking, scheduling application which gets the traveler the best route given his/her requirements.
    - andi999 6y ago
      Other people tried (and succeeded). Like Sabre (seems to be c++, but most is actually SQL it seems), or Amadeus. Well, what I mean: can you elaborate a bit more?
jlarocco 6y ago
Is it so hard to click "hide"?
TeMPOraL 6y ago
"Unreadable" is a choice at this point. Here's a simple trick to make Lisp instantly readable. Take a line of code from an algol-like language: foo(bar(), baz(quux)) then, shift every opening parenthesis one token to the left: (foo (bar), (baz quux)) and drop the commas: (foo (bar) (baz quux)) Now you have an equivalent piece of Lisp code.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Hard agree. I don't use lisp, but people in an adjacent department do (yes, in prod). It takes a few minutes to learn to read lisp. Arithmetic takes a lil bit to grok, but short expressions are easy. I wouldn't share lisp that I've written with my coworkers ;)
- dwheeler 6y ago
  If you prefer to use Lisp with a more conventional syntax, check out "readable Lisp: https://readable.sourceforge.io/ https://readable.sourceforge.io/ It has three levels of notation, depending on what you want. There is even a quick lisp library.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Personally, I like Lisp the way it is. I fully agree with this image: https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/e2e5o/lispovision/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/e2e5o/lispovision/
Koshkin 6y ago
To be fair, bracket abuse is pretty widespread. Lisp, at least, is honest and very consistent in their use. And I don’t find things like [](){} particularly readable (that was valid C++ syntax, BTW).
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  I haven't done C++ in a very long time. That's a lambda that does nothing, right?
  - Koshkin 6y ago
    Correct.
mypalmike 6y ago
The reason is arguably this essay, written by a founder of ycombinator who many here wish to emulate or get the attention of. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
_emacsomancer_ 6y ago
HN itself is written in a lisp. But I don't understand the unreadability claim: lisp syntax is extremely simple, and therefore (for me, someone is not a developer by profession) extremely readable. What makes it unreadable for you? The parentheses? (https://i.redd.it/9gwghrz9rcs11.jpg https://i.redd.it/9gwghrz9rcs11.jpg)
protomyth 6y ago
I find languages like MUMPS unreadable, but I also know a few folks that love it and truly confused why I don't. I programmed a lot of production code with Perl, and that confuses the heck out of a lot of programmers. I loved Postscript and Forth, but I keep running into people that think they are complicated and hard to follow when the rules are so simple. People are hateful of selector-syntax in Smalltalk and Objective-C, but I think its the most easily understandable syntax out there because the what the variables are for is right there instead of just a comma separated list of variables with no hints. I truly wonder if the C family of languages gets so ingrained that anything else is just seen as crappy? Lisp benefits greatly from a decent text editor, but it is quite readable.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  So, emacs? We are talking lisp here. I don't think there's anything that compares.
- mark_l_watson 6y ago
  Indeed, I have a friend who totally loved Mumps. I have almost 40 years with Common Lisp, love the language, but I have always been fairly open to what customers want. I know people who do amazing things with Python or Java. I don’t much care about other peoples’ preferences for politics, programming language selection, or religion (or lack thereof). It seems best for a team to choose a stack by some form consensus, and stick with it. I have read the linked article several times in the 5 years since it was written, and I enjoy the shared experience. But the article could also have been about using Clojure, or Ruby, etc., etc. And also been interesting.
fractallyte 6y ago
I have a complaint. Each comment from the parent poster has been downvoted, so much so that I struggle to read them. Is this what we do now? Instead of agreeing to disagree, or (better!) explaining our viewpoint, we make comments fade into the background? Whatever happened to edification? Because, these are valid comments! The real world bears them out! I strongly disagree, but that does not make me (or anyone else) right. This is a forum for discussion, so - discuss!
- memexy 6y ago
  Well said.
jiyinyiyong 6y ago
See S-expressions in another way like this http://cirru.org/ http://cirru.org/ .

fetbaffe 6y ago

I think you answered your own question.

dirtnugget 6y ago
There is no good reason to use an esoteric language in production except in order to make yourself irreplaceable.
- dirtnugget 6y ago
  And that’s the epitome of selfishness
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    Remember Rick: https://link.medium.com/iRs4xvGXK6 https://link.medium.com/iRs4xvGXK6
    - bluefox 6y ago
      Here you go https://plaster.tymoon.eu/view/678 https://plaster.tymoon.eu/view/678
- capableweb 6y ago
  I wouldn't say Common Lisp is a esoteric language. Esoteric makes me think Brainfuck and other similar languages. Common Lisp and lisps in general are languages you can be productive in, in a "building a product" sense, which you cannot say about most esoteric languages.
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    The author himself says it’s esoteric
    - lispm 6y ago
      He didn't. He wrote: 'Contrary to popular opinion, Lisp is an incredibly practical language for building production systems.'
      - dirtnugget 6y ago
        Please read the dam article: "We’ve built an esoteric application (even by Lisp standards)"
        lispm 6y ago
        I've read it. It says: 'We’ve built an esoteric application (even by Lisp standards)' The application was considered by the author to be esoteric in 2015, not the programming language. Quote: "Our Lisp services are conceptually a classical AI application that operates on huge piles of knowledge created by linguists and researchers. It’s mostly a CPU-bound program, and it is one of the biggest consumers of computing resources in our network." The application is the compute core of a cloud-based grammar checker with lots of complex lingustic knowledge, which generates a lot of processing load. And "(even by Lisp standards)" just means that there are other applications in the Natural Language Processing domain, which were written in Lisp, like software to do machine translation between language or text content checking systems for technical documents.
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    Also, if you’re really willing to go into it you could be productive in Brainfuck. Doesn’t mean it applies to the general crowd.
    - justbaker 6y ago
      It’s not a good comparison at all. Learning lisp or understanding it is a good base knowledge regardless of your primarily language. It’s not a language that’s truly esoteric and difficult to reason about by nature. Metaprogramming/macros can be difficult for those inexperienced, but not impossible. Esoteric languages are often created to either use unfamiliar syntax compared to common languages or unfamiliar paradigms to those. In the end, a lot of things are very similar in nature with esoteric languages, just a very different way, with syntax that’s not as readable as common languages. Lisp is certainly readable and easy to grin even if you have little knowledge of the language
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do programming language flamewars on HN. They're tedious.
- pritovido 6y ago
  You are ignorant of reality, and the first thing that you ignore is that you are ignorant. With Lisp you don't even need to write lisp code. You can write java, c++,c, swift code... using lisp. That is , you can write lisp code without people realizing you are writing lisp code. The only thing they will notice is that your code looks almost too perfect, too well formatted and justified, are extremely productive and never make mistakes.
  - potta_coffee 6y ago
    How can one write C for example using lisp? Are you talking about compiling to C?
    - lispm 6y ago
      Sometimes people write Lisp code and use translators to C or C++. Some of that code then will be maintained in C / C++. Some of these tools were custom developed, but there existed also specialized Lisp to C translators, which produced 'maintainable' code. For example the first version of the .net garbage collector was written in Common Lisp and then translated to C++. Since then it was maintained and enhanced in the C++ version. https://web.archive.org/web/20150307034829/http://blogs.msdn.com/b/patrick_dussud/archive/2006/11/21/how-it-all-started-aka-the-birth-of-the-clr.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20150307034829/http://blogs.msdn...
      - potta_coffee 6y ago
        Interesting, I was not aware of this, thank you.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  Languages have strengths and weaknesses. Learning the right language to express a solution is easier than doing it the hard way in the wrong language just because you happen to know it.
- Redoubts 6y ago
  There's also onanism.
- mapcars 6y ago
  Erm, Lisps were used back in time for many production systems when C++ wasn't even started. Looks like your definition of esoteric and production is based on couple of years of cheap CS courses.
  - bitwize 6y ago
    Oxford's definition of esoteric: "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." Today, C++ is a dominant programming language. Lisp is only used in niche applications. Therefore, it is likely only to be understood by a small number of people with specialized knowledge -- hence, it is esoteric.
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Upon conception it was neither "intended" nor "likely" "to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest" and it is still not intended that way nor likely, that only few people _can_ understand it. It is just that people choose not to take time and understand it. I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from a definition of esoteric, that is without context anyway, taken from a natural language dictionary.
    - mapcars 6y ago
      >Lisp is only used in niche applications Which niche btw?

DoreenMichele 6y ago

HN is written in Lisp. So anyone interested in cloning HN, better understanding HN, etc, would have reason to be interested in reading up on it, even if it's not something they work with normally. Humans being human, I would think it strange if a forum written in Lisp failed to have some sort of pro-Lisp bias.

egl2020 6y ago

You're completely right, there's nothing for you in lisp. Nothing to see here. Just move on.

matvore 6y ago

> it’s basically unreadable to very most of developers The ubiquity of parenthesis has a purpose - it lets you treat code as data. Your argument only makes sense if syntax choice were 100% based on taste. But it's not (simplicity of syntax brings with it practical features), so it's great that some people are exploring other options. And it's not intrinsically less readable than say, something like: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.3/libstdc++/api/a01115_source.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.3/libstdc++/api/a0111...

doublesCs 6y ago
> The ubiquity of parenthesis has a purpose - it lets you treat code as data. Your argument only makes sense if syntax choice were 100% based on taste. But it's not (simplicity of syntax brings with it practical features), so it's great that some people are exploring other options. Are you sure? Plenty of languages[1,2] allow you to treat code as data and they don't need that many parenthesis. [1] https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/ast.html https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/ast.html [2] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/metaprogramming/index.html https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/metaprogramming/inde...
- kgwgk 6y ago
  That's not code as data, that's parsed code as data. julia> :(a + b*c + 1) == Meta.parse("a + b*c + 1") == Expr(:call, :+, :a, Expr(:call, :*, :b, :c), 1) true Why not just use a single representation (+ a (* b c) 1) ?
  - doublesCs 6y ago
    > That's not code as data, that's parsed code as data. I would say: you can execute it, therefore it's code. What am I missing? > Why not just use a single representation (+ a (* b c) 1) ? Are you saying you don't like the default print? You can write a println method for type Expr which prints it any way you want. Seems like a miniscule thing to nitpick.

pritovido 6y ago

I will explain it for you. Lisp is hard to master, like playing the violin, but if you master it you can get enormous rewards. Other languages are more like "playing guitar hero", most of the work is done for you and it it way easier to learn. HN is like a musician network but for programmers. It attracts lots of people around the world that master lisp like musicians master an instrument. I will tell you about myself, I had a lisp master that did teach me that what had taken me weeks in c, c++ and python code he could do it in lisp in minutes. As I saw this man "play his instrument" it was obvious that if I wanted to be a good programmer I should master it myself. Because I had this master teaching me, I could learn it fast. The "secret" of Lisp is that you can automate your code writing, making you tens or hundred of times more capable with your code. "Ivory tower" means it is not related to reality. Lisp is very real, like violins are real.

andi999 6y ago
Thats the story beeing told. Since I havent seen it, my critical mind starts to think, that this is actually a myth. Do you know of any published (in the sense one can reas the code) examples that show this claim (and the reddit v1 is not such an example) (Of course anybody can chime in, it should be actually easy, if the claim that here the experts are lingering around)
avalys 6y ago
Could you give me an example of a real-world software engineering task which takes “weeks” in Python and minutes in Lisp?
- srean 6y ago
  Not weeks to minutes, but still, try writing an Airlines booking, scheduling application which gets the traveler the best route given his/her requirements.
  - andi999 6y ago
    Other people tried (and succeeded). Like Sabre (seems to be c++, but most is actually SQL it seems), or Amadeus. Well, what I mean: can you elaborate a bit more?

jlarocco 6y ago

Is it so hard to click "hide"?

TeMPOraL 6y ago

"Unreadable" is a choice at this point. Here's a simple trick to make Lisp instantly readable. Take a line of code from an algol-like language: foo(bar(), baz(quux)) then, shift every opening parenthesis one token to the left: (foo (bar), (baz quux)) and drop the commas: (foo (bar) (baz quux)) Now you have an equivalent piece of Lisp code.

klyrs 6y ago
Hard agree. I don't use lisp, but people in an adjacent department do (yes, in prod). It takes a few minutes to learn to read lisp. Arithmetic takes a lil bit to grok, but short expressions are easy. I wouldn't share lisp that I've written with my coworkers ;)
dwheeler 6y ago
If you prefer to use Lisp with a more conventional syntax, check out "readable Lisp: https://readable.sourceforge.io/ https://readable.sourceforge.io/ It has three levels of notation, depending on what you want. There is even a quick lisp library.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Personally, I like Lisp the way it is. I fully agree with this image: https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/e2e5o/lispovision/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/e2e5o/lispovision/

Koshkin 6y ago

To be fair, bracket abuse is pretty widespread. Lisp, at least, is honest and very consistent in their use. And I don’t find things like [](){} particularly readable (that was valid C++ syntax, BTW).

ByteJockey 6y ago
I haven't done C++ in a very long time. That's a lambda that does nothing, right?
- Koshkin 6y ago
  Correct.

mypalmike 6y ago

The reason is arguably this essay, written by a founder of ycombinator who many here wish to emulate or get the attention of. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

_emacsomancer_ 6y ago

HN itself is written in a lisp. But I don't understand the unreadability claim: lisp syntax is extremely simple, and therefore (for me, someone is not a developer by profession) extremely readable. What makes it unreadable for you? The parentheses? (https://i.redd.it/9gwghrz9rcs11.jpg https://i.redd.it/9gwghrz9rcs11.jpg)

protomyth 6y ago

I find languages like MUMPS unreadable, but I also know a few folks that love it and truly confused why I don't. I programmed a lot of production code with Perl, and that confuses the heck out of a lot of programmers. I loved Postscript and Forth, but I keep running into people that think they are complicated and hard to follow when the rules are so simple. People are hateful of selector-syntax in Smalltalk and Objective-C, but I think its the most easily understandable syntax out there because the what the variables are for is right there instead of just a comma separated list of variables with no hints. I truly wonder if the C family of languages gets so ingrained that anything else is just seen as crappy? Lisp benefits greatly from a decent text editor, but it is quite readable.

ByteJockey 6y ago
So, emacs? We are talking lisp here. I don't think there's anything that compares.
mark_l_watson 6y ago
Indeed, I have a friend who totally loved Mumps. I have almost 40 years with Common Lisp, love the language, but I have always been fairly open to what customers want. I know people who do amazing things with Python or Java. I don’t much care about other peoples’ preferences for politics, programming language selection, or religion (or lack thereof). It seems best for a team to choose a stack by some form consensus, and stick with it. I have read the linked article several times in the 5 years since it was written, and I enjoy the shared experience. But the article could also have been about using Clojure, or Ruby, etc., etc. And also been interesting.

fractallyte 6y ago

I have a complaint. Each comment from the parent poster has been downvoted, so much so that I struggle to read them. Is this what we do now? Instead of agreeing to disagree, or (better!) explaining our viewpoint, we make comments fade into the background? Whatever happened to edification? Because, these are valid comments! The real world bears them out! I strongly disagree, but that does not make me (or anyone else) right. This is a forum for discussion, so - discuss!

memexy 6y ago
Well said.

jiyinyiyong 6y ago

See S-expressions in another way like this http://cirru.org/ http://cirru.org/ .