3 ms·

> So what does Common Lisp gain by purposely avoiding contributions? Does it do that? Contributions are welcome. It's just that it is not easy for most people

by lispm 12y ago

> So what does Common Lisp gain by purposely avoiding contributions? Does it do that? Contributions are welcome. It's just that it is not easy for most people to contribute to something like Haskell or Common Lisp. Many people just don't have the time or capacity to learn in. There are some people who learn Common Lisp because of specialized tasks (like composing music), but they have a motivation to learn a special tool.

oblio 12y ago
Many people don't have the time or the capacity to contribute to Python or C++ or PHP, either. Yet I rarely see comments as dismissive of the general programming population such as yours, coming from Python/C++/PHP users.
- lispm 12y ago
  Common Lisp, the standard does not change, but each programmer can radically change the language in a day. This power is simply not for everyone and not everyone needs it. There is nothing dismissive about it. It's not that many people need a language, where working on one of several meta-levels is the norm and not the exception.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Yeah, there's a lot dismissive about it. Or, put more bluntly: stop being an asshole. It demeans you and what you're trying to champion.
    - lispm 12y ago
      > Yeah, there's a lot dismissive about it. It's not. Different people have different intellectual capabilities. Some can read Hegel, most don't. Some understand Monads, most don't. That's how it is. Some can debug compile-time macros, others can't. > Or, put more bluntly: stop being an asshole. It demeans you and what you're trying to champion A personal attack. Great style!
      - eropple 12y ago
        Dude, I'm not even disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm saying you're being an asshole all over this thread. Chill.
        lispm 12y ago
        I'm neither your dude nor your asshole. Get some manners.
        oblio 12y ago
        Well, he is right that you're definitely not polite.
        lispm 12y ago
        Because I told you guys that not everyone is intelligent enough to be able to program Lisp on a competent level? Is that a surprise for you? See the 2008 Ruby conference keynote from Yukihiro 'Matz' Matsumoto. He explains it in detail. Start at 8:40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnOBXD167k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnOBXD167k I have interviewed many Java programmers in the past five years. I never found one who could explain how GC works, what lambda in Java 8 does, etc. There are a lot of ordinary programmers out there, even some of them with ten years work experience were surprisingly bad at actual programming. I hired some good ones, but generally the number of not so good programmers is high. Giving them a language where code is data, is a recipe for failure...
        oblio 12y ago
        There are tons of mediocre or even bad programmers out there, in any language. Many of them don't really understand the language they're supposed to master. Heck, there are a trillion C++ programmers out there and giving sub-par programmers access to C++ is also a recipe for failure. Did that ever stop any non-elitist language community? The reason they're "accepted" is that ultimately they make an ecosystem bigger. They want IDEs, linters, debuggers & other tools, books & presentations & trainings, libraries, services, etc - most of which are paid and which allowed better programmers to earn a living. Some of them - a minority - actually move beyond this newbie phase and contribute something useful. They make crappy and less crappy libraries, some of which might be used by "code wizards" when they need to do something (after all, does anyone except for the military, maybe, 100% audit the code dependencies they have?). Let them come, be nice, and they will filter themselves out. I have an additional question for this debate: think about a problem you'd like to solve while developing an application as a start up. What's the likelihood that your problem is solved by several robust libraries in Java and in Lisp? I'd bet that Java probably has several, not just one, high quality open source implementations of the thing I'm looking for - despite the crappy programmers you mention. By high quality I mean - at least decent code quality, good documentation, a lot of examples, discussions about it on public forums, maybe even commercial support, etc.

by lispm 12y ago

oblio 12y ago

Many people don't have the time or the capacity to contribute to Python or C++ or PHP, either. Yet I rarely see comments as dismissive of the general programming population such as yours, coming from Python/C++/PHP users.

lispm 12y ago
Common Lisp, the standard does not change, but each programmer can radically change the language in a day. This power is simply not for everyone and not everyone needs it. There is nothing dismissive about it. It's not that many people need a language, where working on one of several meta-levels is the norm and not the exception.
- eropple 12y ago
  Yeah, there's a lot dismissive about it. Or, put more bluntly: stop being an asshole. It demeans you and what you're trying to champion.
  - lispm 12y ago
    > Yeah, there's a lot dismissive about it. It's not. Different people have different intellectual capabilities. Some can read Hegel, most don't. Some understand Monads, most don't. That's how it is. Some can debug compile-time macros, others can't. > Or, put more bluntly: stop being an asshole. It demeans you and what you're trying to champion A personal attack. Great style!
    - eropple 12y ago
      Dude, I'm not even disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm saying you're being an asshole all over this thread. Chill.
      - lispm 12y ago
        I'm neither your dude nor your asshole. Get some manners.
        oblio 12y ago
        Well, he is right that you're definitely not polite.
        lispm 12y ago
        Because I told you guys that not everyone is intelligent enough to be able to program Lisp on a competent level? Is that a surprise for you? See the 2008 Ruby conference keynote from Yukihiro 'Matz' Matsumoto. He explains it in detail. Start at 8:40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnOBXD167k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnOBXD167k I have interviewed many Java programmers in the past five years. I never found one who could explain how GC works, what lambda in Java 8 does, etc. There are a lot of ordinary programmers out there, even some of them with ten years work experience were surprisingly bad at actual programming. I hired some good ones, but generally the number of not so good programmers is high. Giving them a language where code is data, is a recipe for failure...
        oblio 12y ago
        There are tons of mediocre or even bad programmers out there, in any language. Many of them don't really understand the language they're supposed to master. Heck, there are a trillion C++ programmers out there and giving sub-par programmers access to C++ is also a recipe for failure. Did that ever stop any non-elitist language community? The reason they're "accepted" is that ultimately they make an ecosystem bigger. They want IDEs, linters, debuggers & other tools, books & presentations & trainings, libraries, services, etc - most of which are paid and which allowed better programmers to earn a living. Some of them - a minority - actually move beyond this newbie phase and contribute something useful. They make crappy and less crappy libraries, some of which might be used by "code wizards" when they need to do something (after all, does anyone except for the military, maybe, 100% audit the code dependencies they have?). Let them come, be nice, and they will filter themselves out. I have an additional question for this debate: think about a problem you'd like to solve while developing an application as a start up. What's the likelihood that your problem is solved by several robust libraries in Java and in Lisp? I'd bet that Java probably has several, not just one, high quality open source implementations of the thing I'm looking for - despite the crappy programmers you mention. By high quality I mean - at least decent code quality, good documentation, a lot of examples, discussions about it on public forums, maybe even commercial support, etc.