4 ms·

don't get me wrong, i like lisp a lot. but i think lisp has a bad image because many lispers (not all) are nitpickers. lisper think they are cool, but they are

by fxj 16y ago

don't get me wrong, i like lisp a lot. but i think lisp has a bad image because many lispers (not all) are nitpickers. lisper think they are cool, but they are not. they don't let anything new in their language. they stick to s-expressions like they are the holy grail. they stick to the funny function names as if they were given by god. they are the most conservative language community (maybe apart from COBOL). look at all the disregard they had for arc. this could have been a beginning to dust off the fossil language and remove all the warts. but they did not like it. instead lisp is still the language that it was 50 years ago. <\rant>

dexen 16y ago
> instead lisp is still the language that it was 50 years ago. I beg you to differ. The original, McCarthy Lisp was a succinct, powerful, flexible, dynamic language based on a small set of axioms. Through times, a lot has been thrown out for sake of performance (which was understood to require compilation). Um, well, in case of Lisp, it means a lot of cruft has been added (some say, bolted onto) -- the simplicity etc.etc. was lost. Those days functions aren't even lists anymore, and scoping is lexical! With a few notable exceptions. Which are either hold-outs, or back-to-the-roots/back-to-what-worked-better efforts. Arc is closer to the original Lisp. Also, is more pleasing to use. Not a coincidence.
- pavelludiq 16y ago
  People keep saying that but i don't get it. Can you give me an example of the cruft you are talking about? Its one of those other myths i keep hearing about our cult. p.s. Arc is more pleasing to use to you, I would certainly not choose it over common lisp or clojure, but maybe over scheme.
ldh 16y ago
The existence of Clojure begs to differ.
- fxj 16y ago
  yes the first step in the right direction. now give us (maybe optional) infix notation and get rid of the parenthesis (also optional). this could gain some momentum in the mainstream (but then lisp (or its successor (clojure++)) would no longer be the elitist language oh my!)
  - dexen 16y ago
    Simple syntax isn't about elitism. It's not like some evil Lisper, decades ago, figured ``I know! let's make simple syntax so almost nobody can understand or write it!'' The simple syntax of Lisp has only one purpose: easy programmatic manipulation (reading, writing, transformation). I.e., less boilerplate. Let me spell that out for you: EASIER MANIPULATION, LESS BOILERPLATE. Elitist much? There isn't Yet Another Parser Toolkit Of The Week in the Lisp world, there isn't Yet Another Lexer Utility Of The Month in the Lisp world. Seriously, writing a bunch of parentheses isn't much harder than writing intricate, complex C-like (C++, Java etc.) syntax structures. How the heck did simplicity became synonym of elitism in the subject of Lisp syntax?
  - ldh 16y ago
    Meh. So basically you're asking for "not Lisp"? There are plenty of languages which fill that role already. See: many modern languages which have a functional influence but more syntax (Scala, Ruby, Groovy, etc., etc.)
    - fxj 16y ago
      thank you both for proving my point.
  - pavelludiq 16y ago
    See Dylan.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > now give us (maybe optional) infix notation and get rid of the parenthesis (also optional) Ruby. And it's not elitist - it's just not your taste.
pavelludiq 16y ago
You seem to misunderstand lisp programmers greatly, allow me to attempt to exlain: they don't let anything new in their language. Common Lisp is a standard, changing it requires tremendous resources, and provide little actual value, if you have some language extension you want added to the language, put it in a library, it will be much cheaper and much more useful that way. they stick to s-expressions like they are the holy grail. We stick to s-expressions because they provide tremendous value. They are just more useful than traditional syntax. they stick to the funny function names as if they were given by god. Common lisp has over a thousand symbols, and only a handful of them i would consider funny, and you are complaining about them? And you accuse us of nitpicking? The rest of your rant is more of the same bullshit. How can you say you like lisp, and then continue to talk uninformed ignorant bullshit?

by fxj 16y ago

dexen 16y ago

> instead lisp is still the language that it was 50 years ago. I beg you to differ. The original, McCarthy Lisp was a succinct, powerful, flexible, dynamic language based on a small set of axioms. Through times, a lot has been thrown out for sake of performance (which was understood to require compilation). Um, well, in case of Lisp, it means a lot of cruft has been added (some say, bolted onto) -- the simplicity etc.etc. was lost. Those days functions aren't even lists anymore, and scoping is lexical! With a few notable exceptions. Which are either hold-outs, or back-to-the-roots/back-to-what-worked-better efforts. Arc is closer to the original Lisp. Also, is more pleasing to use. Not a coincidence.

pavelludiq 16y ago
People keep saying that but i don't get it. Can you give me an example of the cruft you are talking about? Its one of those other myths i keep hearing about our cult. p.s. Arc is more pleasing to use to you, I would certainly not choose it over common lisp or clojure, but maybe over scheme.

ldh 16y ago

The existence of Clojure begs to differ.

fxj 16y ago
yes the first step in the right direction. now give us (maybe optional) infix notation and get rid of the parenthesis (also optional). this could gain some momentum in the mainstream (but then lisp (or its successor (clojure++)) would no longer be the elitist language oh my!)
- dexen 16y ago
  Simple syntax isn't about elitism. It's not like some evil Lisper, decades ago, figured ``I know! let's make simple syntax so almost nobody can understand or write it!'' The simple syntax of Lisp has only one purpose: easy programmatic manipulation (reading, writing, transformation). I.e., less boilerplate. Let me spell that out for you: EASIER MANIPULATION, LESS BOILERPLATE. Elitist much? There isn't Yet Another Parser Toolkit Of The Week in the Lisp world, there isn't Yet Another Lexer Utility Of The Month in the Lisp world. Seriously, writing a bunch of parentheses isn't much harder than writing intricate, complex C-like (C++, Java etc.) syntax structures. How the heck did simplicity became synonym of elitism in the subject of Lisp syntax?
- ldh 16y ago
  Meh. So basically you're asking for "not Lisp"? There are plenty of languages which fill that role already. See: many modern languages which have a functional influence but more syntax (Scala, Ruby, Groovy, etc., etc.)
  - fxj 16y ago
    thank you both for proving my point.
- pavelludiq 16y ago
  See Dylan.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > now give us (maybe optional) infix notation and get rid of the parenthesis (also optional) Ruby. And it's not elitist - it's just not your taste.

pavelludiq 16y ago

You seem to misunderstand lisp programmers greatly, allow me to attempt to exlain: they don't let anything new in their language. Common Lisp is a standard, changing it requires tremendous resources, and provide little actual value, if you have some language extension you want added to the language, put it in a library, it will be much cheaper and much more useful that way. they stick to s-expressions like they are the holy grail. We stick to s-expressions because they provide tremendous value. They are just more useful than traditional syntax. they stick to the funny function names as if they were given by god. Common lisp has over a thousand symbols, and only a handful of them i would consider funny, and you are complaining about them? And you accuse us of nitpicking? The rest of your rant is more of the same bullshit. How can you say you like lisp, and then continue to talk uninformed ignorant bullshit?