2 ms·

I wonder how much this balkanization is a result of the syntactic extension capabilities of lispish languages? The fact that you can implement changes to the l

I wonder how much this balkanization is a result of the syntactic extension capabilities of lispish languages? The fact that you can implement changes to the language in the language makes it easier to improve it in terms of coming up with new features/patterns etc. However this can be a double edged sword when you need to then train large numbers of programmers in order to create libraries etc. for the new language. Or maybe its not that the splintering occurs directly because of the language. Instead it might occur indirectly due to lisp programmers, having been exposed to the idea of language extension through lisp, become more prone to creating a whole new language when the one they have doesn't suit their needs precisely?

silentbicycle 18y ago
Well, first, the core Scheme spec is tiny. Tons of people have written at least half-complete Scheme interpreters (self included, in OCaml). It's a fun project, and it teaches you a lot about programming, even if you don't do the tricky parts (like full continuations). This seems to feed a strong "just fork your own" sentiment in the community, though, and that probably leads directly to a mishmash of incompatible libraries. That's Scheme, though, not Common Lisp; CL was an attempt to reign in several divergent Lisp dialects. Also, I think people overuse macros. Certain people have put a lot of time into promoting them as the biggest asset of the language, which tends to encourage people to use them where they're not only unnecessary, but likely to make code harder to understand / maintain. (See, for instance, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542746 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542746. Especially: "Q: What do you get when programmers design a language while trying to get something else done? A: PHP") While I'm not knowledgeable enough about Ruby to say for certain, I could see making a big deal about "monkeypatching" causing similar problems there. Maybe the Ruby community encourages more restraint, though. Anybody?

silentbicycle 18y ago

Well, first, the core Scheme spec is tiny. Tons of people have written at least half-complete Scheme interpreters (self included, in OCaml). It's a fun project, and it teaches you a lot about programming, even if you don't do the tricky parts (like full continuations). This seems to feed a strong "just fork your own" sentiment in the community, though, and that probably leads directly to a mishmash of incompatible libraries. That's Scheme, though, not Common Lisp; CL was an attempt to reign in several divergent Lisp dialects. Also, I think people overuse macros. Certain people have put a lot of time into promoting them as the biggest asset of the language, which tends to encourage people to use them where they're not only unnecessary, but likely to make code harder to understand / maintain. (See, for instance, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542746 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542746. Especially: "Q: What do you get when programmers design a language while trying to get something else done? A: PHP") While I'm not knowledgeable enough about Ruby to say for certain, I could see making a big deal about "monkeypatching" causing similar problems there. Maybe the Ruby community encourages more restraint, though. Anybody?