3 ms·

"The curse of Lisp" is a well known phrase that's been used in hundreds of essays: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+curse+of+lisp&oq=the+curse+of+lisp&aqs=c

"The curse of Lisp" is a well known phrase that's been used in hundreds of essays: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+curse+of+lisp&oq=the+curse+of+lisp&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l3.5304j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=the+curse+of+lisp&oq=the+cur... There has been much debate about why Lisp has not taken over the world of computing. It was invented in 1958, it was taught in all the best schools, yet it has not gained mass traction. Paul Graham has touched on this issue in one of his essays: "So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make fun of Eric Raymond here. On the whole, his advice is good. What he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom. But there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom: Lisp will make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it. Why not? Programming languages are just tools, after all. If Lisp really does yield better programs, you should use it. And if it doesn't, then who needs it?" http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html This issue has been discussed and debated for decades. Your statement "it is not limited to Lisp" is simply ignorant. There is something special about Lisp: no other language has received so much praise and so little use. Essays like the Bipolar Lisp Programmer are important contributions toward understanding what the problem is. And when a real-world example appears, it is utterly stupid to ignore the fact that what you are looking at is a real-world example. Your comment "worse (not everything we wanted) is better (but still better than what's out there)" is a non-sequitur, since the quality of Chris Granger's work was never questioned.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
ESR knows nothing about painters. The painter knows there is never a "best" brush, just different ones. Painters often thrive creatively via constraints, and so the uber brush would actually be unwanted anyways. But I don't see what is relevant here. There are plenty of languages that have received lots of praise but little use. Erm, Haskell anyone? And you really have to clarify what "use" means, because Lisp is definitely used. Again, I see no relevance. My comment on "worse is better", it is also Lisp oriented (well, more specifically CLOS). You should look it up.
- sitkack 12y ago
  When I think of worse is better, I think of Linux, MySQL, Hadoop, PHP and Windows 3.1/95. Even the original Volkswagen is a worse is better car.
- noblethrasher 12y ago
  Actually, the quote is from Paul Graham, who does happen to know a little about painters, being one himself. Also, he wasn't claiming that Lisp is the "best" brush, only that it is analogous to a brush that will make you a better painter… somehow. Interestingly, the "other big Lisp advocate" just happens to also advance the idea that programming against constraints is good for the same reason you mention, except that he used examples of famous composers rather than painters since he's a musician himself[1]. [1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Performance http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Perfor...
lispm 12y ago
> "The curse of Lisp" is a well known phrase that's been used in hundreds of essays: If you actually look through the Google results, there are not that many 'essays' about that topic. > There has been much debate about why Lisp has not taken over the world of computing. It was invented in 1958, it was taught in all the best schools, yet it has not gained mass traction. This fate is shared by a lot of things. The whole idea that Lisp needs or will get 'mass traction' is just complete bullshit. There is no reason for that expectation. > Your statement "it is not limited to Lisp" is simply ignorant. No, it isn't. The whole idea is just unscientific bullshit. > There is something special about Lisp: no other language has received so much praise and so little use. So, what. Lisp exists since 1958. During the last 50+ years people have written a lot about Lisp. That's it. There are now many times more articles published in the past year about Java and its ecosystem than over Lisp during its whole lifetime. > Essays like the Bipolar Lisp Programmer are important contributions toward understanding what the problem is. Tarver has very little idea what he is talking about. He lives in his own world. Everybody at an university has seen similar behavior in different contexts. But I would not call it 'bipolar', because this is just a bullshit label, failing to describe anything credible. Lisp got used in a lot of innovative projects often in a R&D and University context. As a rapid prototyping tool, as a research vehicle, ... That their 'products' are not polished and tend to fail, is just normal. Innovation fails a lot. Also Lisp was often a prototyping tool. Prototypes tend to be reworked into products using a different technology. Just like somebody makes a prototype using a high-end CNC machine and later uses different production technologies for mass production. It also attracts people, who are innovative. It's just like startups, which fail a lot. That's just it. Move on nothing to see.
- sitkack 12y ago
  You just made some new friends. (seriously, love your attitude (shit, I still sound snide (not being snide, {although parens are making it look that way})))

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

ESR knows nothing about painters. The painter knows there is never a "best" brush, just different ones. Painters often thrive creatively via constraints, and so the uber brush would actually be unwanted anyways. But I don't see what is relevant here. There are plenty of languages that have received lots of praise but little use. Erm, Haskell anyone? And you really have to clarify what "use" means, because Lisp is definitely used. Again, I see no relevance. My comment on "worse is better", it is also Lisp oriented (well, more specifically CLOS). You should look it up.

sitkack 12y ago
When I think of worse is better, I think of Linux, MySQL, Hadoop, PHP and Windows 3.1/95. Even the original Volkswagen is a worse is better car.
noblethrasher 12y ago
Actually, the quote is from Paul Graham, who does happen to know a little about painters, being one himself. Also, he wasn't claiming that Lisp is the "best" brush, only that it is analogous to a brush that will make you a better painter… somehow. Interestingly, the "other big Lisp advocate" just happens to also advance the idea that programming against constraints is good for the same reason you mention, except that he used examples of famous composers rather than painters since he's a musician himself[1]. [1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Performance http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Perfor...

lispm 12y ago

> "The curse of Lisp" is a well known phrase that's been used in hundreds of essays: If you actually look through the Google results, there are not that many 'essays' about that topic. > There has been much debate about why Lisp has not taken over the world of computing. It was invented in 1958, it was taught in all the best schools, yet it has not gained mass traction. This fate is shared by a lot of things. The whole idea that Lisp needs or will get 'mass traction' is just complete bullshit. There is no reason for that expectation. > Your statement "it is not limited to Lisp" is simply ignorant. No, it isn't. The whole idea is just unscientific bullshit. > There is something special about Lisp: no other language has received so much praise and so little use. So, what. Lisp exists since 1958. During the last 50+ years people have written a lot about Lisp. That's it. There are now many times more articles published in the past year about Java and its ecosystem than over Lisp during its whole lifetime. > Essays like the Bipolar Lisp Programmer are important contributions toward understanding what the problem is. Tarver has very little idea what he is talking about. He lives in his own world. Everybody at an university has seen similar behavior in different contexts. But I would not call it 'bipolar', because this is just a bullshit label, failing to describe anything credible. Lisp got used in a lot of innovative projects often in a R&D and University context. As a rapid prototyping tool, as a research vehicle, ... That their 'products' are not polished and tend to fail, is just normal. Innovation fails a lot. Also Lisp was often a prototyping tool. Prototypes tend to be reworked into products using a different technology. Just like somebody makes a prototype using a high-end CNC machine and later uses different production technologies for mass production. It also attracts people, who are innovative. It's just like startups, which fail a lot. That's just it. Move on nothing to see.

sitkack 12y ago
You just made some new friends. (seriously, love your attitude (shit, I still sound snide (not being snide, {although parens are making it look that way})))