5 ms·

It's not "hard", it's just "different". I don't see how it breaks a "certain type of thinking" that we are "wired" for, other than that it fundamentally differe

It's not "hard", it's just "different". I don't see how it breaks a "certain type of thinking" that we are "wired" for, other than that it fundamentally different from the imperative / structured programming that 99% of programmers are introduced to in their first language. I don't see how breaking with that model is beyond the ken of human beings. You can even take intermediate steps; learning Python and its code introspection features makes "code == data" a lot simpler to grok because you've already seen that sort of thing before. Maybe the electrician just wired your brain wrong. You might want to try and get a refund.

markessien 18y ago
No, it's fundamentally difficult for human beings. You know why? Take a look at mathematics. It is fundamentally difficult for human beings because it does not fit the model that we grew up with evolutionarily. Math is just a language, but it's a very difficult language for most human beings to learn because we don't naturally think using those type of expressions. Lisp was created as mathematical notation for computers. It is based of a language that the most people have difficulty with in school. I'm good at math, and I have no problem with lisp. I'm just pointing out that it will not be the next big thing because this type of thinking is not easy for most people to get into. Pythonic thinking on the other hand is easy for people to understand.
- fauigerzigerk 18y ago
  If lisp is hard to pick up but those who do have a grasp of it are significantly more productive than they would be in other languages, then it should be a success. Since so little software is written in lisp, I can only conclude that the language doesn't actually make its users much more productive or that the significance of libraries is greater than pg wants to admit or that most brilliant programmers are rather ignorant when it comes to selecting their tools.
  - ivanstojic 18y ago
    Actually, I have authored a piece commercial Common Lisp based web 2.0 software. It's small, simple, and for whatever problems I didn't feel like resolving myself, I could find a library to solve it for me. In my book, Lisp is great. P.S. And I'll keep using it for future projects!
- utx00 18y ago
  on the surface. yes. which one do you consider more powerful as a tool for expressing ideas?
  - markessien 18y ago
    Ideas are best expressed in plain english. Commands to computers are best expressed in simplistic statements like those that exist in python. Complex systems should be modelled by reducing the complexity. What I mean is that one has to black-box certain parts of complex systems such that human minds can deal with the concepts effectively. Object oriented programming is a way of doing this, but it's not the perfect way.
    - utx00 18y ago
      sorry, i meant explicitly to a computer. some of the ideas i need to express in order to make a living are not so easily expressed in python: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=343738 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=343738

markessien 18y ago

No, it's fundamentally difficult for human beings. You know why? Take a look at mathematics. It is fundamentally difficult for human beings because it does not fit the model that we grew up with evolutionarily. Math is just a language, but it's a very difficult language for most human beings to learn because we don't naturally think using those type of expressions. Lisp was created as mathematical notation for computers. It is based of a language that the most people have difficulty with in school. I'm good at math, and I have no problem with lisp. I'm just pointing out that it will not be the next big thing because this type of thinking is not easy for most people to get into. Pythonic thinking on the other hand is easy for people to understand.

fauigerzigerk 18y ago
If lisp is hard to pick up but those who do have a grasp of it are significantly more productive than they would be in other languages, then it should be a success. Since so little software is written in lisp, I can only conclude that the language doesn't actually make its users much more productive or that the significance of libraries is greater than pg wants to admit or that most brilliant programmers are rather ignorant when it comes to selecting their tools.
- ivanstojic 18y ago
  Actually, I have authored a piece commercial Common Lisp based web 2.0 software. It's small, simple, and for whatever problems I didn't feel like resolving myself, I could find a library to solve it for me. In my book, Lisp is great. P.S. And I'll keep using it for future projects!
utx00 18y ago
on the surface. yes. which one do you consider more powerful as a tool for expressing ideas?
- markessien 18y ago
  Ideas are best expressed in plain english. Commands to computers are best expressed in simplistic statements like those that exist in python. Complex systems should be modelled by reducing the complexity. What I mean is that one has to black-box certain parts of complex systems such that human minds can deal with the concepts effectively. Object oriented programming is a way of doing this, but it's not the perfect way.
  - utx00 18y ago
    sorry, i meant explicitly to a computer. some of the ideas i need to express in order to make a living are not so easily expressed in python: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=343738 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=343738