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

Blub Paradox (2014)

wiki.c2.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#11

Post by jhbadger »

mcv wrote: post #10
tim333 wrote: post #3

It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to >And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to…

I'd love to know Lisp, just like I'd love to know Python. I have no experience in either (I come mostly from Java, javascript with some Ruby and some ancient C/C++ experience). When I look at Python code, I understand what it does. I don't think I've ever written any Python, but I think I could sit down and be productive within a day. Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. I'd love to be able to understand it a…

But that's because all the languages you know are basically dialects of each other because they all descend from ALGOL, not because they are inherently easier to understand. Similarly, someone trained in Lisp would find things like Scheme and Clojure easier to understand than something like Python because those likewise are dialects of Lisp. I'd strongly recommend studying languages different from ones you know -- they are mind expanding even if you never use them in practice. Not just Lisp, but things like Haskell, OCAML/F#, and Prolog will change the way you think.

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#12

Post by kazinator »

mcv wrote: post #10
tim333 wrote: post #3

It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to >And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to…

I'd love to know Lisp, just like I'd love to know Python. I have no experience in either (I come mostly from Java, javascript with some Ruby and some ancient C/C++ experience). When I look at Python code, I understand what it does. I don't think I've ever written any Python, but I think I could sit down and be productive within a day. Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. I'd love to be able to understand it a…

> Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me.

Might that be Clojure, rather than Lisp, that you're looking at, without an extensive functional programming background?

Some classic Lisp code, too, will look like gobbledygook if you've never had a tutorial, due to unfamiliar symbols. If you don't know what is a "cons cell" or the functions car and cdr, for instance.

Surely, you can guess what this is doing:

  (let ((x 3) (y 4))
    (print (+ x y)))

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#13

Post by Jtsummers »

mcv wrote: post #10
tim333 wrote: post #3

It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to >And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to…

I'd love to know Lisp, just like I'd love to know Python. I have no experience in either (I come mostly from Java, javascript with some Ruby and some ancient C/C++ experience). When I look at Python code, I understand what it does. I don't think I've ever written any Python, but I think I could sit down and be productive within a day. Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. I'd love to be able to understand it a…

Little Schemer is a good introduction to lisp (Scheme in particular) and may help you get past the "complete gobbledygook" stage. Paradigms of AI Programming is a rather advanced text, but a good one since Norvig writes very clean and documented code (even the code snippets in the text include docstrings). It's also free now (Little Schemer isn't, but it's not expensive either).

Steve Losh has a good [0] starting article on Common Lisp as well, which might be a better starting point than the books I mentioned, and could lead to them.

[0] http://stevelosh.com/blog/2018/08/a-road-to-common-lisp/

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#14

Post by mamon »

protomyth wrote: post #8

If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now. Ruby really needed Rails to get people to try it. I think the killer use problem is more an explanation then anything else. Java also showed a good marketing, well funded campaign does wonders.

Or, iOS would never took off, because no one would want to write apps for it.

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#15

Post by wycy »

jhbadger wrote: post #11
mcv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know Lisp, just like I'd love to know Python. I have no experience in either (I come mostly from Java, javascript with some Ruby and some ancient C/C++ experience). When I look at Python code, I understand what it does. I don't think I've ever written any Python, but I think I could sit down and be productive within a day. Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. I'd love to be able to understand it a…

But that's because all the languages you know are basically dialects of each other because they all descend from ALGOL, not because they are inherently easier to understand. Similarly, someone trained in Lisp would find things like Scheme and Clojure easier to understand than something like Python because those likewise are dialects of Lisp. I'd strongly recommend studying languages different from ones you know -- th…

> not because they are inherently easier to understand

I'm honestly not sure that that's true. I would bet money that someone who primarily works in Lisp would still have an easier time sitting down and reading Python code than someone who works in Python sitting down and reading Lisp, because I think it might truly be inherently easier to understand.

There is intrinsic meaning in:

    x = 5
    let x = 5
etc., insofar as these translate character for character, word for word, into human language, whereas this simply doesn't:

    (let (x 5))

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#16

Post by axilmar »

tim333 wrote: post #3

It's kind of interesting in the 2001 essay that invented blub it was suggested as a hypothesis as to >And if Lisp is so great, why doesn't everyone use it? Suggesting programmers in a blub language don't realise it's power. I get the impression in the 18 or so years subsequently that the main reason for the low uptake of Lisp is it's power enables people to write clever code that other programmers have quite a job to…

Code readability and ease of modification are also part of a programming language's power. LISP scores lower on those than Python and so Python is more preferrable than LISP (assuming all other factors balance each other out - in reality it is the tooling).

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#17

Post by zzzcpan »

protomyth wrote: post #8

If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now. Ruby really needed Rails to get people to try it. I think the killer use problem is more an explanation then anything else. Java also showed a good marketing, well funded campaign does wonders.

> If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now.

It could have dragged iOS popularity with it.

Pushing, promoting or forcing something is not enough for it to become popular and widely used.

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#18

Post by zzzcpan »

mamon wrote: post #14
protomyth wrote: post #8

If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now. Ruby really needed Rails to get people to try it. I think the killer use problem is more an explanation then anything else. Java also showed a good marketing, well funded campaign does wonders.

Or, iOS would never took off, because no one would want to write apps for it.

Yeah, there is this weird idea on HN that any language can become popular if some big ecosystem adopts it before it becomes big. The reality is more complicated of course. Familiarity, simplicity, learning curve all matter much more, than people want to believe.

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#19

Post by protomyth »

zzzcpan wrote: post #17
protomyth wrote: post #8

If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now. Ruby really needed Rails to get people to try it. I think the killer use problem is more an explanation then anything else. Java also showed a good marketing, well funded campaign does wonders.

> If iOS had required Lisp instead of Objective-C, then Lisp would have been popular right now. It could have dragged iOS popularity with it. Pushing, promoting or forcing something is not enough for it to become popular and widely used.

Given the hype and the company, there was no way Lisp would have drug it down. The only way for it to affect iOS was to provide a worse environment than the web apps. People would have found a way just as the reluctant found a way with Objective-C.

Ask Sun about Java and their promotional campaign. When a teacher at a community college in North Dakota gets a call and sent a book to help him decide to teach their language, you can be very effective at pushing.

Re: Blub Paradox (2014)

#20

Post by zzzcpan »

kazinator wrote: post #12
mcv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know Lisp, just like I'd love to know Python. I have no experience in either (I come mostly from Java, javascript with some Ruby and some ancient C/C++ experience). When I look at Python code, I understand what it does. I don't think I've ever written any Python, but I think I could sit down and be productive within a day. Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. I'd love to be able to understand it a…

> Lisp looks like complete gobbledygook to me. Might that be Clojure, rather than Lisp, that you're looking at, without an extensive functional programming background? Some classic Lisp code, too, will look like gobbledygook if you've never had a tutorial, due to unfamiliar symbols. If you don't know what is a "cons cell" or the functions car and cdr , for instance. Surely, you can guess what this is doing: (let ((x…

> Surely, you can guess what this is doing:

Only if you got far enough in your background/education to understand prefix notation. Most people aren't there.

Post reply on HN