3 ms·

I was about to try and finally learn some lisp but now I am scared... Are there really nearly 1000 symbols? All in the same namespace? I thought you guys wer

by brfox 18y ago

I was about to try and finally learn some lisp but now I am scared... Are there really nearly 1000 symbols? All in the same namespace? I thought you guys were always trashing php for having too many symbols.

ced 18y ago
Then you could always go for scheme, it's smaller. But it doesn't really matter. You can start with a tutorial, and just work with the core vocabulary, then gradually expand. I've been doing CL almost full-time for a year, and still, every once in a while, I find out that one function I'd defined is exactly the same as a built-in that I didn't know about. One namespace for the built-in functions is not a problem in practice, it just means that you don't have a de facto categorization of the commands like in Python. This sometimes makes life painful when looking for commands, but no big deal. I sure wish the hyperspec was better hyperlinked though. The See Also section is abysmal. find is not connected to member: What the hell. I also find that C-c-d-a in slime is helpful for looking for the right command.
parenthesis 18y ago
978, actually. It's not as bad as it sounds, when you consider that that includes not only (the names of) functions and macros, (of which there are many groups of similar/related ones, e.g. car, cdr, cadr, cdar etc. or char<, char>, char= etc.,) but also system constants and variables, and types and classes.
- Hexstream 18y ago
  Also there's some functions you use all the time so you'll get to know them quickly (ex: find, remove, push, mapcar, assoc) and others you'll probably never need (ex: tagbody, prog, progv). In short you only have to learn a fraction of those 978 to be able to make something significant. You can consult http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html when you need deeper knowledge in a particular topic.

by brfox 18y ago

ced 18y ago

Then you could always go for scheme, it's smaller. But it doesn't really matter. You can start with a tutorial, and just work with the core vocabulary, then gradually expand. I've been doing CL almost full-time for a year, and still, every once in a while, I find out that one function I'd defined is exactly the same as a built-in that I didn't know about. One namespace for the built-in functions is not a problem in practice, it just means that you don't have a de facto categorization of the commands like in Python. This sometimes makes life painful when looking for commands, but no big deal. I sure wish the hyperspec was better hyperlinked though. The See Also section is abysmal. find is not connected to member: What the hell. I also find that C-c-d-a in slime is helpful for looking for the right command.

parenthesis 18y ago

978, actually. It's not as bad as it sounds, when you consider that that includes not only (the names of) functions and macros, (of which there are many groups of similar/related ones, e.g. car, cdr, cadr, cdar etc. or char<, char>, char= etc.,) but also system constants and variables, and types and classes.

Hexstream 18y ago
Also there's some functions you use all the time so you'll get to know them quickly (ex: find, remove, push, mapcar, assoc) and others you'll probably never need (ex: tagbody, prog, progv). In short you only have to learn a fraction of those 978 to be able to make something significant. You can consult http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html http://www.lisp.org/HyperSpec/FrontMatter/Chapter-Index.html when you need deeper knowledge in a particular topic.