5 ms·

Emacs and elisp is the only sensible choice, because gained knowledge will not be wasted. Lisp is not fun general purpose programming language and tiny example

Emacs and elisp is the only sensible choice, because gained knowledge will not be wasted. Lisp is not fun general purpose programming language and tiny examples teach you nothing. Only when you are confronted with huge datasets and enormous problems you might appreciate freedom of expression in Clojure vs Javascript.

Jtsummers 6y ago
While I agree that elisp is a very practical choice, the three main other lisps out there today are general purpose languages. Common Lisp, Clojure, and Scheme are all general purpose languages.
- timonoko 6y ago
  Yes yes but they are not "fun". Like Python is. Clojure is especially messy piece of spaghetti code, if you are not already familiar with the underlying engine. Commonlisp is just ugly with very annoying error processing (how do I get out of here (I made recursive error (while trying to exit from error (what (is (this (shit))))))))). Scheme is for academics, full of weird stuff, like (local ..), which I am not gonna learn ever.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    "Fun" is way too subjective to use as a differentiator here. There are some languages most people would consider "not fun", at least outside the puzzle sense like "Can I make a Ruby on Rails clone in Cobol?" And there are some languages that most people would consider more "fun" for some specific thing, like Processing is "fun" for the ease of getting graphical and interactive results. I'd say that Racket is at least as fun as Python given the readily available graphical and network libraries. Common Lisp, for me, is as fun as Python but requires a bit more work. And I can't comment on Clojure's "funness" because I haven't used it extensively, but with its Java interop it has access to a lot of things that should put it on par with Python. Here I'm equating "fun" with relative ease of entry + ease of accomplishing more complex tasks (like GUI building, or making a basic interactive web app) + relative simplicity/consistency of the language. What's your definition of "fun"? I find it puzzling that you describe Clojure as spaghetti code because I have literally no idea what you mean with that statement. Spaghetti code, in programming, has a rather specific meaning that I cannot conceive of applying to Clojure. Namely: spaghetti code = unstructured code that abuses goto/jumps or their equivalents. So that sentence makes zero sense as presently written.
    - timonoko 6y ago
      Programming system is "fun" when you do not have to read stupid manuals ever and error reporting system tells you what you should do. I do not remember ever reading anything about python. Clojure is the most unfun lisp indeed, unless you know java. Clojure 1.9.0 user=> (+ 'a 1) ClassCastException class clojure.lang.Symbol cannot be cast to class java.lang.Number (clojure.lang.Symbol is in unnamed module of loader 'app'; java.lang.Number is in module java.base of loader 'bootstrap') clojure.lang.Numbers.add (Numbers.java:128)
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        I am impressed that you were born with the knowledge of Python embedded in your brain.
        mod 6y ago
        Since you've taken the worst possible interpretation of his comment: He's saying that clojure errors are not user-friendly and give you little idea how to implement a fix. I agree with him, and I have spent a lot of time scratching my head debugging clojure. Python gives a better idea of what's wrong, where it's wrong, and what a fix might be. Here's roughly his example, but in python: >>> "a" + 2 Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects
        lispm 6y ago
        in the Lisp I'm using I get this: CL-USER 24 > (+ "a" 1) Error: In + of ("a" 1) arguments should be of type NUMBER. 1 (continue) Return a value to use. 2 Supply a new first argument. 3 (abort) Return to top loop level 0. Type :b for backtrace or :c <option number> to proceed. Type :bug-form "<subject>" for a bug report template or :? for other options. CL-USER 25 : 1 > There is a clear error message and direct ways to fix/report the problem. Including another REPL to investigate the error.

Jtsummers 6y ago

While I agree that elisp is a very practical choice, the three main other lisps out there today are general purpose languages. Common Lisp, Clojure, and Scheme are all general purpose languages.

timonoko 6y ago
Yes yes but they are not "fun". Like Python is. Clojure is especially messy piece of spaghetti code, if you are not already familiar with the underlying engine. Commonlisp is just ugly with very annoying error processing (how do I get out of here (I made recursive error (while trying to exit from error (what (is (this (shit))))))))). Scheme is for academics, full of weird stuff, like (local ..), which I am not gonna learn ever.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  "Fun" is way too subjective to use as a differentiator here. There are some languages most people would consider "not fun", at least outside the puzzle sense like "Can I make a Ruby on Rails clone in Cobol?" And there are some languages that most people would consider more "fun" for some specific thing, like Processing is "fun" for the ease of getting graphical and interactive results. I'd say that Racket is at least as fun as Python given the readily available graphical and network libraries. Common Lisp, for me, is as fun as Python but requires a bit more work. And I can't comment on Clojure's "funness" because I haven't used it extensively, but with its Java interop it has access to a lot of things that should put it on par with Python. Here I'm equating "fun" with relative ease of entry + ease of accomplishing more complex tasks (like GUI building, or making a basic interactive web app) + relative simplicity/consistency of the language. What's your definition of "fun"? I find it puzzling that you describe Clojure as spaghetti code because I have literally no idea what you mean with that statement. Spaghetti code, in programming, has a rather specific meaning that I cannot conceive of applying to Clojure. Namely: spaghetti code = unstructured code that abuses goto/jumps or their equivalents. So that sentence makes zero sense as presently written.
  - timonoko 6y ago
    Programming system is "fun" when you do not have to read stupid manuals ever and error reporting system tells you what you should do. I do not remember ever reading anything about python. Clojure is the most unfun lisp indeed, unless you know java. Clojure 1.9.0 user=> (+ 'a 1) ClassCastException class clojure.lang.Symbol cannot be cast to class java.lang.Number (clojure.lang.Symbol is in unnamed module of loader 'app'; java.lang.Number is in module java.base of loader 'bootstrap') clojure.lang.Numbers.add (Numbers.java:128)
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      I am impressed that you were born with the knowledge of Python embedded in your brain.
      - mod 6y ago
        Since you've taken the worst possible interpretation of his comment: He's saying that clojure errors are not user-friendly and give you little idea how to implement a fix. I agree with him, and I have spent a lot of time scratching my head debugging clojure. Python gives a better idea of what's wrong, where it's wrong, and what a fix might be. Here's roughly his example, but in python: >>> "a" + 2 Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects
        lispm 6y ago
        in the Lisp I'm using I get this: CL-USER 24 > (+ "a" 1) Error: In + of ("a" 1) arguments should be of type NUMBER. 1 (continue) Return a value to use. 2 Supply a new first argument. 3 (abort) Return to top loop level 0. Type :b for backtrace or :c <option number> to proceed. Type :bug-form "<subject>" for a bug report template or :? for other options. CL-USER 25 : 1 > There is a clear error message and direct ways to fix/report the problem. Including another REPL to investigate the error.