Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Lisp Is Unpopular

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 159 posts

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#11

Post by brlewis »

ralphc wrote: post #9
brlewis wrote: post #2

There are many hypotheses out there that Lisp lacks popularity for this or that flaw in the language or in the community. The problem with these hypotheses is that you can point to similar or bigger flaws in languages that have grown popular. If a language has good qualities, people will figure out ways around the problems. My hypothesis is that Lisp is unpopular for the exact same reason some of us love it: concise…

I'll throw in my 2 cents... Up until recently, one "flaw" that Lisp had that other languages didn't was one obvious best implementation. If you want to work in Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, etc. you knew where to get them, and you know they would work similarly across platforms, so programs you wrote on your Mac would work on Windows and Linux, etc. With Lisp, different implementations did the "interesting" stuff (thread…

Tell me, where's the clear winner between ruby and python? Between python and PHP? Between PHP and Perl? Between OCAML and Haskell? Plenty of languages have managed to rise in popularity through a time when you didn't know if any of your code might run on the future winner. At least with Lisp implementations you know some of your code will work with the winner. "Waiting for a clear winner" is not a reason for Lisp not to grow in popularity.

Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby -- none of these emerged from the womb with a full-grown development environment. They managed to grow to the point where people wrote Eclipse plugins or what have you. Lack of a "mainstream" development environment is not a reason for Lisp not to grow in popularity.

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#12

Post by lst »

Lisp is not unpopular (look at all the programming newbies around!), it's simply much misunderstood (like many of the high-end solutions, because its simple looking base is all but trivial...)

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#13

Post by 0x44 »

brlewis wrote: post #11
ralphc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll throw in my 2 cents... Up until recently, one "flaw" that Lisp had that other languages didn't was one obvious best implementation. If you want to work in Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, etc. you knew where to get them, and you know they would work similarly across platforms, so programs you wrote on your Mac would work on Windows and Linux, etc. With Lisp, different implementations did the "interesting" stuff (thread…

Tell me, where's the clear winner between ruby and python? Between python and PHP? Between PHP and Perl? Between OCAML and Haskell? Plenty of languages have managed to rise in popularity through a time when you didn't know if any of your code might run on the future winner. At least with Lisp implementations you know some of your code will work with the winner. "Waiting for a clear winner" is not a reason for Lisp no…

Unless you're implying that each Lisp interpreter is its own language, I don't think your contention really applies. If I learn Lisp on Lispworks, and go sit down at GNU CLisp, I'm not programming in a different language - I'm using a different sub-set thereof. When I sit down to a Ruby program, and then switch to a PHP script - there are fundamental differences between the two languages that transcend the library or features either provides.

Ralphc's point wasn't about there being a clear winner in the dynamic language space, but that each of the languages mentioned had one canonical interpreter.

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#14

Post by edu »

edu wrote: post #10

I like Lisp a lot, and from my own experience I think that the main reasons why people dislike Lisp are prefix notation and parentheses . Sure, my experience is only anecdotal and not at all large. But always I've tried to introduce someone to Lisp (I'm talking of about 5 people, none of them have converted...) they seem incapable to see further than the parenthesis and the prefix notation, but specially the parenthe…

Whoever had downmoded my comment: please, can you explain me the rationale for such action? So I never again piss you off with, what seems to me, an in-topic comment.

Thank you very much.

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#15

Post by m0nty »

edu wrote: post #14
edu wrote: post #10

I like Lisp a lot, and from my own experience I think that the main reasons why people dislike Lisp are prefix notation and parentheses . Sure, my experience is only anecdotal and not at all large. But always I've tried to introduce someone to Lisp (I'm talking of about 5 people, none of them have converted...) they seem incapable to see further than the parenthesis and the prefix notation, but specially the parenthe…

Whoever had downmoded my comment: please, can you explain me the rationale for such action? So I never again piss you off with, what seems to me, an in-topic comment. Thank you very much.

You probably stepped on the toes of someone who likes Perl and Windows. Particularly, you mentioned Mac OS which some people have an inexplicable antithesis towards. You're playing with fire, my friend ;) Downmods are the least of your worries now.

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#16

Post by dpapathanasiou »

edu wrote: post #10

I like Lisp a lot, and from my own experience I think that the main reasons why people dislike Lisp are prefix notation and parentheses . Sure, my experience is only anecdotal and not at all large. But always I've tried to introduce someone to Lisp (I'm talking of about 5 people, none of them have converted...) they seem incapable to see further than the parenthesis and the prefix notation, but specially the parenthe…

The best retort to the parenthesis complaint is: "I like to ask people who complain about parentheses in Lisp if they are bothered by all the spaces between words in a newspaper." (http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-hell-is-fortu...)

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#17

Post by dpapathanasiou »

meat-eater wrote: post #7

The biggest barrier in my opinion is what most people think is "weird" syntax or the more precisely the absence of it. People are just not used to it. Add to the that the lack of popular libraries for some modern niceties and it really adds to it being unpopular.

I don't understand the syntax complaint: it is simple to learn, and with few exceptions, applies in all cases.

Other language syntax (C or Erlang, e.g.) is arbitrary and tedious by comparison.

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#18

Post by jrockway »

edu wrote: post #10

I like Lisp a lot, and from my own experience I think that the main reasons why people dislike Lisp are prefix notation and parentheses . Sure, my experience is only anecdotal and not at all large. But always I've tried to introduce someone to Lisp (I'm talking of about 5 people, none of them have converted...) they seem incapable to see further than the parenthesis and the prefix notation, but specially the parenthe…

I think your hatred for Perl is unfair. Yes, eval and strings is a terrible substitute for macros. Only an idiot would pretend otherwise. But 90% of the time, the other tools we do have available (first-class functions, everything internal being dynamic) lets us get by.

For example, a few months ago I was working on a blog post about how nice it would be if Perl had macros. I had a perfect example picked out, but I decieded to try an implement it without macros. It ended up working perfectly.

The docs explain the original problem, and my solution: http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/Context-Preserve-0.01/lib/C...

Also, if you read your friendly local CLOS implementation, you will notice a lot of macros. Moose is a CLOS-alike for Perl, and it obviously didn't need macros. (Actually, I would like to port Moose to Lisp, 'cause it's much more sugary than CLOS, and it has traits. Mixins FTL.)

Anyway, Perl is nearly as good as lisp, so be careful when choosing your examples. (Incidentally, I am currently working on a lisp variant that compiles to Perl, because I like lisp syntax better than Perl syntax, but I like Perl's CPAN and regex engine.)

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#19

Post by gordianknot »

dpapathanasiou wrote: post #17
meat-eater wrote: post #7

The biggest barrier in my opinion is what most people think is "weird" syntax or the more precisely the absence of it. People are just not used to it. Add to the that the lack of popular libraries for some modern niceties and it really adds to it being unpopular.

I don't understand the syntax complaint: it is simple to learn, and with few exceptions, applies in all cases. Other language syntax (C or Erlang, e.g.) is arbitrary and tedious by comparison.

It's not "syntax," it's human parseability. Lisp is hard to parse because humans don't think in lists. Some people are smart enough or naturally able to overcome that obstacle, but most aren't.

Re: Why Lisp Is Unpopular

#20

Post by jrockway »

pTymN wrote: post #6

How to make Lisp popular (or as popular as Lisp will ever get): 1) SBCL working very well on the big three PC platforms. 2) Bindings + easy installation for popular libraries. 3) Education (pg's articles, everything on planet.lisp.org) 4) Solid debugging, perhaps with things like breakpoints. There is much activity on all 4 problem items that I identified above, so Lisp IS getting more popular. I don't know if progra…

I think the problem Lisp has is that very few people are forced to use it. If you look at the average programmer, he doesn't want to think about programming, he just wants to press keys an go home. So a language that requires you to think instead of type is not something that he is going to flock to.

I think the sad reality is that most programmers aren't very smart, so smart languages will never become popular.

I'm not sure why it matters though, there are plenty of CL libraries (and jobs), so if you like lisp you can get by just fine.

Post reply on HN