13 ms·

I think the comparison to C++ is apt. Both languages are sensible tools for experts, but unfortunately very complex. In C++, this is naturally due to backward c

by sbt 15y ago

I think the comparison to C++ is apt. Both languages are sensible tools for experts, but unfortunately very complex. In C++, this is naturally due to backward compatibility with C. But in CL, it's the result of design by committee. Clojure is a great lisp dialect, but if you had the resources to write a new runtime, you could probably do better.

pavelludiq 15y ago
With the risk of making myself sound even more defensive about common lisp that I already did, common lisp was not designed by a committee, it was standardized after a lot of use and discussion within the community. p.s. And an expert is exactly what I want to become, I have no ambition to be a code monkey. I'm truly sorry if expertise and skill are valued less these days in the tech circles. "Good enough" is not good enough for me. I look up to the experts and brilliant minds of our community and aspire to be as good one day, I don't care much for the general case, i have no use for "a language for everybody".
- sbt 15y ago
  I applaud that you want to become an expert. Emacs is a good example of a tool that takes a long time to learn, but this effort is well amortized. My intention was not to criticize C++, I think it's the right choice if you have the right people, as is Common Lisp. At the same time, tools with a high barrier to entry obviously have a harder time gaining adoption. Take the LOOP facility, it's obviously powerful, but it baffles beginners. One issue though. While becoming an expert in C++ can be a fruitful career path, all of the people I know who are using CL for work, are consultants working to maintain old projects. I'm not qualified to say how much money is in this or if it's any fun, but in my experience it's really hard to get a company to agree to CL, because of lack of people. That's why adoptability matters so tremendously. As for whether CL was designed by a committee or not, I was trying to communicate Richard Gabriel's account at http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/clcrit.pdf http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/clcrit.pdf
  - pavelludiq 15y ago
    Tools like Emacs and Common Lisp are exactly the kind that I actively seek. I needed novice friendly tools four years ago when I was starting with python, I don't need them anymore. You're a novice only once, you're an expert for life. I was already playing around with Scheme and Clojure for at leas two years when I started learning Common Lisp, very few things have been exceptionally hard or foreign for me, loop was definitely not one of them. That's the reason I get so hot-headed about these kinds of things. I have invested a lot in bettering my self as a programmer. Articles like this one insult years of hard work, and my own effort is just a very small part of it. People have been building these tools and communities for 50 years before I even knew what a computer was, dismissing it so lightheartedly pisses me off. I only hope others understand. Maybe I just have too high standards. Comes with being young I guess :)

by sbt 15y ago

pavelludiq 15y ago

With the risk of making myself sound even more defensive about common lisp that I already did, common lisp was not designed by a committee, it was standardized after a lot of use and discussion within the community. p.s. And an expert is exactly what I want to become, I have no ambition to be a code monkey. I'm truly sorry if expertise and skill are valued less these days in the tech circles. "Good enough" is not good enough for me. I look up to the experts and brilliant minds of our community and aspire to be as good one day, I don't care much for the general case, i have no use for "a language for everybody".

sbt 15y ago
I applaud that you want to become an expert. Emacs is a good example of a tool that takes a long time to learn, but this effort is well amortized. My intention was not to criticize C++, I think it's the right choice if you have the right people, as is Common Lisp. At the same time, tools with a high barrier to entry obviously have a harder time gaining adoption. Take the LOOP facility, it's obviously powerful, but it baffles beginners. One issue though. While becoming an expert in C++ can be a fruitful career path, all of the people I know who are using CL for work, are consultants working to maintain old projects. I'm not qualified to say how much money is in this or if it's any fun, but in my experience it's really hard to get a company to agree to CL, because of lack of people. That's why adoptability matters so tremendously. As for whether CL was designed by a committee or not, I was trying to communicate Richard Gabriel's account at http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/clcrit.pdf http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/clcrit.pdf
- pavelludiq 15y ago
  Tools like Emacs and Common Lisp are exactly the kind that I actively seek. I needed novice friendly tools four years ago when I was starting with python, I don't need them anymore. You're a novice only once, you're an expert for life. I was already playing around with Scheme and Clojure for at leas two years when I started learning Common Lisp, very few things have been exceptionally hard or foreign for me, loop was definitely not one of them. That's the reason I get so hot-headed about these kinds of things. I have invested a lot in bettering my self as a programmer. Articles like this one insult years of hard work, and my own effort is just a very small part of it. People have been building these tools and communities for 50 years before I even knew what a computer was, dismissing it so lightheartedly pisses me off. I only hope others understand. Maybe I just have too high standards. Comes with being young I guess :)