3 ms·
I've been programming (dabbling, to be honest) in LISP since about 1980, I've never shipped any products in it. I wrote a couple of toy interpreters in college
by kabdib 12y ago
I've been programming (dabbling, to be honest) in LISP since about 1980, I've never shipped any products in it. I wrote a couple of toy interpreters in college (after reading Allan's Anatomy of LISP) and some small projects, but nothing massive.
I read SICP when it first came out and did most of the exercises. Yet Scheme was a terrible language to ship software in (commercial implementations were basically toys). I assume that Common LISP was a lot better, but the real packages were expensive.
I guess the real problem is that I didn't have cow-orkers who understood my obsession with LISP, nor did I work on any projects that I could really use it for. Could have switched companies, I suppose, but I liked working on operating systems . . .
- agumonkey 12y agoAight, to each his own, a lot of Haskell mystery vanished when I saw it explained in terms of simpler languages (pattern matching, lazy evaluation, curryfication etc etc) but apparently that's not what's bothering you.
- kabdib 12y agoHmmm, your answer was still helpful. Please don't get me wrong. I guess I'm just used to functional style where data === code to a great degree. I'll take another look at Haskell when I finish my current (yuck) Java based project :-)
- V-2 12y agoI think FP languages' reputation of being hard to learn is partly owed to intimidating terminology that makes certain concepts appear more difficult than they actually are.