3 ms·

> Looking back, I think I was so into Lisp because I just wanted to feel superior and better than the dirty Java or Python programmers? tbh, Paul Graham's arti

> Looking back, I think I was so into Lisp because I just wanted to feel superior and better than the dirty Java or Python programmers? tbh, Paul Graham's articles on Lisp have done more harm than good to programmers. Calling Lisp a "secret weapon" that supercharges your startup and gives you immense competitive advantage is unrealistic and lacks concrete evidence.

nequo 2y ago
The problem is that those essays were written right after the 1990s when Common Lisp was much more ahead of other languages and when static typing hadn’t yet taken the form that is popular today. Back then, your alternatives were C/C++/Java/Pascal/Perl, and Python and Ruby were the novelties that were still much slower than CL and as I understand it had inferior tooling. Since then, the landscape has changed.
- behnamoh 2y ago
  I agree with this. But CL programmers seem to think Lisp is timeless and its best days are ahead of it still. I wonder if they're already awesome programmers and that's why they pick Lisp for maximum freedom (macros?). Most people aren't wizards, and can't (nor do they want to) invent small DSLs on the go. With great power comes great responsibility, and most people don't want that responsibility.
  - reikonomusha 2y ago
    I can assure you that most people are not considering Lisp and thinking, "huh, this is too much responsibility, so not for me." Lisp has a higher barrier to entry compared to Python or Rust or other languages available. For that simple reason alone, it's not used. None of these imagined reasons about the theoretical power or anti-power of macros, or being a wizard, or whatever are part of the calculus of choosing a language.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Learning Lisp has a tricky part, and one of my classmates in undergrad despaired of ever learning it, but surely Rust is harder to learn than Lisp, which makes me wonder what you mean by "Lisp has a higher barrier to entry".
      - reikonomusha 2y ago
        You have to first install a Lisp compiler whose REPL is so spartan than even using arrow keys causes errors in your terminal. You have to learn Emacs. Figure out wtf SLIME and Paredit are from docs written in piecemeal plaintext READMEs. Then learn from a book that's older than you that makes no reference to any of the tools you just labored over installing. Then get a bunch of conflicting information about proper Lisp style from random patches of internet. Who has time for that these days, except for the very determined and dedicated? I think Lisp is a superlative language with excellent tools—once learned. But it hasn't had its UI revolution from anybody who cares enough to do the work.
        hollerith 2y ago
        I've been writing Lisp for 40 years, and still haven't started using SLIME or Paredit. And the reason it is called "style" is that it is not essential to actually getting things done.
        reikonomusha 2y ago
        Style is not essential to getting things done, but it's essential to building a community and having labor be multiplicative in its impact. Lisp is a language ripe for expressing a personal style, and that's antithetical to collaboration in a variety of ways. It can be managed, if the community can rally around a common set of principles. I likewise have written Common Lisp for decades. But I also get paid to do it, manage a team that does it, and see immense value in doing these extra things that hackers don't much care for, such as: - making Lisp compatible with other languages through ABIs - developing stylistic guidelines - developing systems for static typing in Lisp to assist long-term development and maintenance of Lisp code - etc. So does style or the lack of any of the aforementioned bullets "block" the ability to "get things done"? Strictly speaking, no, but it inhibits outside interest in your project.

nequo 2y ago

The problem is that those essays were written right after the 1990s when Common Lisp was much more ahead of other languages and when static typing hadn’t yet taken the form that is popular today. Back then, your alternatives were C/C++/Java/Pascal/Perl, and Python and Ruby were the novelties that were still much slower than CL and as I understand it had inferior tooling. Since then, the landscape has changed.

behnamoh 2y ago
I agree with this. But CL programmers seem to think Lisp is timeless and its best days are ahead of it still. I wonder if they're already awesome programmers and that's why they pick Lisp for maximum freedom (macros?). Most people aren't wizards, and can't (nor do they want to) invent small DSLs on the go. With great power comes great responsibility, and most people don't want that responsibility.
- reikonomusha 2y ago
  I can assure you that most people are not considering Lisp and thinking, "huh, this is too much responsibility, so not for me." Lisp has a higher barrier to entry compared to Python or Rust or other languages available. For that simple reason alone, it's not used. None of these imagined reasons about the theoretical power or anti-power of macros, or being a wizard, or whatever are part of the calculus of choosing a language.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Learning Lisp has a tricky part, and one of my classmates in undergrad despaired of ever learning it, but surely Rust is harder to learn than Lisp, which makes me wonder what you mean by "Lisp has a higher barrier to entry".
    - reikonomusha 2y ago
      You have to first install a Lisp compiler whose REPL is so spartan than even using arrow keys causes errors in your terminal. You have to learn Emacs. Figure out wtf SLIME and Paredit are from docs written in piecemeal plaintext READMEs. Then learn from a book that's older than you that makes no reference to any of the tools you just labored over installing. Then get a bunch of conflicting information about proper Lisp style from random patches of internet. Who has time for that these days, except for the very determined and dedicated? I think Lisp is a superlative language with excellent tools—once learned. But it hasn't had its UI revolution from anybody who cares enough to do the work.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        I've been writing Lisp for 40 years, and still haven't started using SLIME or Paredit. And the reason it is called "style" is that it is not essential to actually getting things done.
        reikonomusha 2y ago
        Style is not essential to getting things done, but it's essential to building a community and having labor be multiplicative in its impact. Lisp is a language ripe for expressing a personal style, and that's antithetical to collaboration in a variety of ways. It can be managed, if the community can rally around a common set of principles. I likewise have written Common Lisp for decades. But I also get paid to do it, manage a team that does it, and see immense value in doing these extra things that hackers don't much care for, such as: - making Lisp compatible with other languages through ABIs - developing stylistic guidelines - developing systems for static typing in Lisp to assist long-term development and maintenance of Lisp code - etc. So does style or the lack of any of the aforementioned bullets "block" the ability to "get things done"? Strictly speaking, no, but it inhibits outside interest in your project.