Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
1–10 of 127 posts
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#2For those who don't know Peter Norvig, let me mention that he wrote one of the best Lisp books:
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#3For those who don't know Peter Norvig, let me mention that he wrote one of the best Lisp books: http://norvig.com/paip.html
Not just one of the best Lisp books; but one of the best books on programming, period.
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#4For those who don't know Peter Norvig, let me mention that he wrote one of the best Lisp books: http://norvig.com/paip.html
Not just one of the best Lisp books; but one of the best books on programming, period.
I think it's a programming book that happens to use Lisp as an example language to explain AI concepts and algorithms, rather than a Lisp book.
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#5Norvig nailed it - instead of being sissy about macros altogether the mainstream languages must rather enforce a certain discipline. And the rules for the macros done right are very simple and well known.
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#6It's interesting to see Peter Norvig replying, but his answer is a little unsatisfying "oh but it did..."
The more interesting and honest reply in my opinion is ranked in second place by Robert Smith - sounds like he did some proper reflecting on what it is to be a Lisp programmer nowadays and what the language's (or implementation, since this question is for CL specifically) shortcomings are
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#7It might not have fixed the world, but it has been an influence on other PLs and programming in general. It helped bring several interesting concepts to the forefront and it at least provided an alternative, which is nice and healthy.
LISP didn't "fix the world", but in my view, it helped make it slightly better.
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#8Why on earth would it fix the world? It was a step forward in the history of programming languages; but somehow the end of it, the final fix? Why would anyone expect that?
Programming languages are about providing a useful way for humans to formulate and implement their ideas. Starting by turning things on their head reverse polish notation style is bad start as it is counter intuitive to nearly everyone.
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just one of the best Lisp books; but one of the best books on programming, period.
I think it's a programming book that happens to use Lisp as an example language to explain AI concepts and algorithms, rather than a Lisp book.
Actually not. The book is full of beautiful code, combined with deep Lisp lore how to write that code.
Re: Why didn't Common Lisp fix the world?
#10Common Lisp doesn't have type checking and well defined namespace. And it has eval. That's certainly a no go for people like me.
Most programmers in the world don't have to invent/implement a radical new idea in five minutes.