3 ms·
> "At some point functional programming became equivalent in people's minds to complex type systems (e.g., monads), and that caused the value of Lisp to be lost
by grumpyprole 4y ago
> "At some point functional programming became equivalent in people's minds to complex type systems (e.g., monads), and that caused the value of Lisp to be lost to history. It's a shame."
This is nonsense. Types help us name, categorise, discuss and share abstractions. These abstractions are useful in any language, typed or otherwise. Lisp lives on in its descendents ML and Haskell.
If someone doesn't want to learn anything new, then they are themselves "lost to history".
- TurboHaskal 4y agoI program in both Lisp and SML/OCaml. I don't think Lisp lives in the latter. For me, Lisp is about power. However, Haskell and other languages that popularized category theory feel like going through the GoF nightmare again.
- grumpyprole 4y agoSML/OCaml has built-in cons lists and is great for symbolic manipulation. Everything is an expression and there's too many parens.