4 ms·

I’m sure the author of this is actually a nice person, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a lisper being smug and obnoxious in the way I’ve seen peop

I’m sure the author of this is actually a nice person, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a lisper being smug and obnoxious in the way I’ve seen people satirize a thousand times.

cardanome 1y ago
I think the issue is that the topic comes up quite often as seen by the author needing to create the gist. It easy to come across as a bit of "smug and obnoxious" when you explain something for the xth time. I remember chatting with them years ago and they were pretty friendly. But yeah Lisp does have a specific culture and it can put people off thought I personally never encountered any bad apples.
- Fraterkes 1y ago
  I checked some of her other stuff and she seems great! I just wouldn’t want to argue with her about Lisp I think.
  - Jach 1y ago
    If the argument was not born from ignorance I think it'd be fine ;) There's a rich history, decades old, of people claiming Lisp can't do X or is bad for Y, or is only a category and the true meaning of Lisp as a category is just having s-expression syntax. Some Lispers get more touchy when such things come up yet again. Attempts to correct misconceptions do work a little bit but just like bad and false popsci memes (remember when the "you only use 10% of your brain" myth was more popular?) the false memes seem to spread more easily. It takes a long time to overcome them, if ever.
wk_end 1y ago
Compared to much of what went on comp.lang.lisp this is pretty gentle. Based on the impression it gives of the book, possibly more gentle than it deserves!
BalinKing 1y ago
With the exception of one or two sentences, it sounded pretty neutral to me... maybe I just didn't read it closely enough? The "dogmatism" of the technical criticism (assuming the post is accurate) really does seem justified to me—e.g. if the book uses dynamic scoping without even a disclaimer like "this is a bad idea, but we're doing it for simplicity", that alone makes it a bad recommendation for beginners IMO.
KerrAvon 1y ago
I don't know, it doesn't seem overly smug to me. It seems borne of experience and helpfulness. "And a parser generator is very overkill for a Lisp parser - just use recursive decent!" -- it's interesting that, as simple as Lisp is to parse, this is the same advice you'd get from experienced C/C++ compiler writers, from modern Clang to Stroustrup in 1993.
int_19h 1y ago
Well, they are writing about someone who purports to teach people how to implement programming languages, but then botches it rather badly.

I’m sure the author of this is actually a nice person, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a lisper being smug and obnoxious in the way I’ve seen people satirize a thousand times.

cardanome 1y ago

I think the issue is that the topic comes up quite often as seen by the author needing to create the gist. It easy to come across as a bit of "smug and obnoxious" when you explain something for the xth time. I remember chatting with them years ago and they were pretty friendly. But yeah Lisp does have a specific culture and it can put people off thought I personally never encountered any bad apples.

Fraterkes 1y ago
I checked some of her other stuff and she seems great! I just wouldn’t want to argue with her about Lisp I think.
- Jach 1y ago
  If the argument was not born from ignorance I think it'd be fine ;) There's a rich history, decades old, of people claiming Lisp can't do X or is bad for Y, or is only a category and the true meaning of Lisp as a category is just having s-expression syntax. Some Lispers get more touchy when such things come up yet again. Attempts to correct misconceptions do work a little bit but just like bad and false popsci memes (remember when the "you only use 10% of your brain" myth was more popular?) the false memes seem to spread more easily. It takes a long time to overcome them, if ever.

wk_end 1y ago

Compared to much of what went on comp.lang.lisp this is pretty gentle. Based on the impression it gives of the book, possibly more gentle than it deserves!

BalinKing 1y ago

With the exception of one or two sentences, it sounded pretty neutral to me... maybe I just didn't read it closely enough? The "dogmatism" of the technical criticism (assuming the post is accurate) really does seem justified to me—e.g. if the book uses dynamic scoping without even a disclaimer like "this is a bad idea, but we're doing it for simplicity", that alone makes it a bad recommendation for beginners IMO.

KerrAvon 1y ago

I don't know, it doesn't seem overly smug to me. It seems borne of experience and helpfulness. "And a parser generator is very overkill for a Lisp parser - just use recursive decent!" -- it's interesting that, as simple as Lisp is to parse, this is the same advice you'd get from experienced C/C++ compiler writers, from modern Clang to Stroustrup in 1993.

int_19h 1y ago

Well, they are writing about someone who purports to teach people how to implement programming languages, but then botches it rather badly.