4 ms·

Frankly, yes, I wouldn't mind going back to boring old lisp. Particularly when confronted with Java or Javascript. I also have no real desire to dive into stron

Frankly, yes, I wouldn't mind going back to boring old lisp. Particularly when confronted with Java or Javascript. I also have no real desire to dive into strongly typed functional languages - see the "dynamic" part of the original title. And all of those modern functional languages are as fringe (or even more fringe) than Lisp is. I wish this wasn't the case, but let's be honest: programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers and companies will always optimize for development teams of wildly varying skill.

sidlls 4y ago
Why does every thread about functional programming and/or lisp have to have this not-so-subtle dig at developers who don't use them? Do you really think developers who prefer functional programming or lisp(s) are smarter on average than other developers?
- substation13 4y ago
  No smarter, but they likely care a great deal more about programming.
  - sidlls 4y ago
    I doubt that very much.
grumpyprole 4y ago
> I also have no real desire to dive into strongly typed functional languages - That's a big shame. But don't knock it until you've tried it. > And all of those modern functional languages are as fringe (or even more fringe) than Lisp is. I'm not convinced Lisp is more popular anymore. I've spent the last 10 years being a full time Haskell and OCaml programmer. The killer application is compilers and associated tooling. Almost no one is choosing Lisp for this today. And why would they? > but let's be honest: programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers Where do you think the newer mainstream languages are getting e.g. algebraic datatypes and pattern matching from?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Although one point is that many only learn Lisp from FOSS tooling, instead of the Lisp Machine survivors, CCL, Allegro and LispWorks. One of the talks at this year's HIW is how Haskell could be more better in IDE tooling.
- JonChesterfield 4y ago
  That's interesting. Have you written anything further about ML vs lisp for tooling, or could point to a reference? Compiler dev here, C++ when paid and lisp when not. Interested in SML but haven't spent the time to assess what I'm missing. Exhaustive pattern matching over AST nodes is a good trick. That might interact better with the type constructors than ad hoc representation in clos. It seems possible I should stop putting everything in a map. Is the edge over lisp in the compile time rejection of incorrect programs or elsewhere?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tralarpa 4y ago
> programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers and companies will always optimize for development teams of wildly varying skill Does emacs have a hotkey for this sentence? Or why does it keep coming up in every discussion remotely related to lisp?

sidlls 4y ago

Why does every thread about functional programming and/or lisp have to have this not-so-subtle dig at developers who don't use them? Do you really think developers who prefer functional programming or lisp(s) are smarter on average than other developers?

substation13 4y ago
No smarter, but they likely care a great deal more about programming.
- sidlls 4y ago
  I doubt that very much.

grumpyprole 4y ago

> I also have no real desire to dive into strongly typed functional languages - That's a big shame. But don't knock it until you've tried it. > And all of those modern functional languages are as fringe (or even more fringe) than Lisp is. I'm not convinced Lisp is more popular anymore. I've spent the last 10 years being a full time Haskell and OCaml programmer. The killer application is compilers and associated tooling. Almost no one is choosing Lisp for this today. And why would they? > but let's be honest: programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers Where do you think the newer mainstream languages are getting e.g. algebraic datatypes and pattern matching from?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 4y ago
Although one point is that many only learn Lisp from FOSS tooling, instead of the Lisp Machine survivors, CCL, Allegro and LispWorks. One of the talks at this year's HIW is how Haskell could be more better in IDE tooling.
JonChesterfield 4y ago
That's interesting. Have you written anything further about ML vs lisp for tooling, or could point to a reference? Compiler dev here, C++ when paid and lisp when not. Interested in SML but haven't spent the time to assess what I'm missing. Exhaustive pattern matching over AST nodes is a good trick. That might interact better with the type constructors than ad hoc representation in clos. It seems possible I should stop putting everything in a map. Is the edge over lisp in the compile time rejection of incorrect programs or elsewhere?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tralarpa 4y ago

> programming languages that appeal to mainstream developers and companies will always optimize for development teams of wildly varying skill Does emacs have a hotkey for this sentence? Or why does it keep coming up in every discussion remotely related to lisp?