5 ms·

It's because some people don't like s-expressions, so they've been making up a bunch of other stuff.

by qqq 18y ago

notyouravgjoel 18y ago
My theory: people who don't like s-expressions don't get programming; Thus, everyone who gets programming and is exposed to lisp becomes a lisp programmer, and people who suck at programming are left out.
- inklesspen 18y ago
  I know many people who are counterexamples to your theory. Languages like Perl and Python have a strong advantage in libraries. If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it.
  - coryrc 18y ago
    The (derisive) saying used to be "You can write FORTRAN in any language" but you can also write Lisp in any language. Not that I completely agree with the GP's point.
    - gruseom 18y ago
      you can also write Lisp in any language No you can't. In fact, that's precisely what you can't do. (Unless you're talking about writing a Lisp interpreter... but then your Lisp programs themselves would still be written in Lisp.)
  - gruseom 18y ago
    I think the parent comment was probably trolling, but as someone who loves Lisp I have to say that some people have deeper reasons for not liking it than "libraries". A few of the best programmers I know just don't like Lisp. They tell me s-expressions don't fit the way their brains work. I'm not inclined to dismiss this as laziness, stupidity, or ignorance - though it's tempting :) If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it. This is not an unreasonable thing to say, yet I'm skeptical. The problem is that a lot of the things that are natural to do in language X just wouldn't occur to you in language Y. I think this is a big problem with the way people compare programming languages. I've been meaning to write a post about it sometime.
  - pg 18y ago
    If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it. True. But the Lisp programmer would reply that you need the things only Lisp can do in most non-trivial programs.
- nomoresecrets 18y ago
  I suspect that this is your hypothesis, rather than your theory.
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  I'm a big fan of Lisp, but this is definitely not true. Do you think the CMUCL (a popular Common Lisp application) team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? Or the functional programming community in general? Some of the members of that community who are of a certain age would have cut their teeth on Lisp, but they ended up designing/using *ML and Haskell. Or how about Alexander Stepanov, who went from Scheme to C++ and designed the STL? Or Guy Steele, who invented Scheme but went on to help design Java and Fortress? These are not stupid people.
  - pg 18y ago
    Do you think the CMUCL team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? No, but close. They were designing a language for other people who did. The original intention with Dylan was to create a Lisp that was made more accessible for mainstream programmers. Ditto Guy Steele on Java: "we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp."
    - rsheridan6 18y ago
      I didn't get to this in a timely manner due to a Christmas vacation, but I'll bite anyway. I didn't know that Dylan was considered a LFM rather than a LFSP by its creators, but I do know that at least of them gets s-expressions and still thinks they're a bad idea. See Dave Moon's suggestion: http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt

It's because some people don't like s-expressions, so they've been making up a bunch of other stuff.

by qqq 18y ago

It's because some people don't like s-expressions, so they've been making up a bunch of other stuff.

My theory: people who don't like s-expressions don't get programming; Thus, everyone who gets programming and is exposed to lisp becomes a lisp programmer, and people who suck at programming are left out.

inklesspen 18y ago
I know many people who are counterexamples to your theory. Languages like Perl and Python have a strong advantage in libraries. If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it.
- coryrc 18y ago
  The (derisive) saying used to be "You can write FORTRAN in any language" but you can also write Lisp in any language. Not that I completely agree with the GP's point.
  - gruseom 18y ago
    you can also write Lisp in any language No you can't. In fact, that's precisely what you can't do. (Unless you're talking about writing a Lisp interpreter... but then your Lisp programs themselves would still be written in Lisp.)
- gruseom 18y ago
  I think the parent comment was probably trolling, but as someone who loves Lisp I have to say that some people have deeper reasons for not liking it than "libraries". A few of the best programmers I know just don't like Lisp. They tell me s-expressions don't fit the way their brains work. I'm not inclined to dismiss this as laziness, stupidity, or ignorance - though it's tempting :) If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it. This is not an unreasonable thing to say, yet I'm skeptical. The problem is that a lot of the things that are natural to do in language X just wouldn't occur to you in language Y. I think this is a big problem with the way people compare programming languages. I've been meaning to write a post about it sometime.
- pg 18y ago
  If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it. True. But the Lisp programmer would reply that you need the things only Lisp can do in most non-trivial programs.
nomoresecrets 18y ago
I suspect that this is your hypothesis, rather than your theory.
rsheridan6 18y ago
I'm a big fan of Lisp, but this is definitely not true. Do you think the CMUCL (a popular Common Lisp application) team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? Or the functional programming community in general? Some of the members of that community who are of a certain age would have cut their teeth on Lisp, but they ended up designing/using *ML and Haskell. Or how about Alexander Stepanov, who went from Scheme to C++ and designed the STL? Or Guy Steele, who invented Scheme but went on to help design Java and Fortress? These are not stupid people.
- pg 18y ago
  Do you think the CMUCL team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? No, but close. They were designing a language for other people who did. The original intention with Dylan was to create a Lisp that was made more accessible for mainstream programmers. Ditto Guy Steele on Java: "we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp."
  - rsheridan6 18y ago
    I didn't get to this in a timely manner due to a Christmas vacation, but I'll bite anyway. I didn't know that Dylan was considered a LFM rather than a LFSP by its creators, but I do know that at least of them gets s-expressions and still thinks they're a bad idea. See Dave Moon's suggestion: http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt