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

Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

letoverlambda.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#21

Post by varjag »

coldtea wrote: post #19
wirrbel wrote: post #2

Worth a read because it is one the most condescending computing books I have ever read. While reading I got the impression that I read the text of a really immature fanboy in a web forum of the 2000s. I hope the author has matured by now. Seriously, don't buy this book.

Or, you know, the author knows his stuff and is deservedly condescending in an industry of trends and cargo cults. As in arts and politics, some curmudgeons are needed in every field, if not for anything else, to show that there's another way than the mainstream. (They don't have to be perfectly right either -- it's having a strong perspective that counts, nobody is 100% right anyway).

There are numerous great Lisp books by knowledgeable authors which have none of that attitude. Life is too short to read printouts of Usenet rants.

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#22

Post by 4thaccount »

maze-le wrote: post #16
Grue3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common Lisp was finalized in the 90s. And it's not its fault that the other languages haven't caught up yet.

Still, its a trip to hell to maintain any lisp codebase -- especially if it contains macros. I think it is actively hostile to collaborative programming, and that is a structural problem where there is no remedy but obscure programming patterns (which are amplifying these problems in some instances). With that in mind -- boasting about 'the most advanced language' is a bit of a stretch -- to say the least...

They're looking at it from the point of one to a few coders and you're looking at it from an industrial view with larger teams. I think it probably shines more in the former. If macros aren't overused, it's probably not all that different from other dynamic languages like Python that work fine with larger teams.

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#23

Post by PuercoPop »

maze-le wrote: post #16
Grue3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common Lisp was finalized in the 90s. And it's not its fault that the other languages haven't caught up yet.

Still, its a trip to hell to maintain any lisp codebase -- especially if it contains macros. I think it is actively hostile to collaborative programming, and that is a structural problem where there is no remedy but obscure programming patterns (which are amplifying these problems in some instances). With that in mind -- boasting about 'the most advanced language' is a bit of a stretch -- to say the least...

Do you say that out of experience? That is certainly not my _experience_. Lisp codebases tend to be easily "appropiable"

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#24

Post by pepper_sauce »

mjaniczek wrote: post #11
wirrbel wrote: post #2

Worth a read because it is one the most condescending computing books I have ever read. While reading I got the impression that I read the text of a really immature fanboy in a web forum of the 2000s. I hope the author has matured by now. Seriously, don't buy this book.

https://letoverlambda.com/index.cl/guest/chap6.html Yeah, the sixth chapter sure bashes on Scheme a lot. :/

Good heavens! Not Scheme!

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#25

Post by pepper_sauce »

damsdu78 wrote: post #4
black-tea wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was great, but I know it's not a book for snowflakes. When I hear someone say "this is right" or "this is wrong", I am able to effortlessly interpret this as "I believe this is right/wrong". It's just being efficient with language. I don't need people to add extra words for fear of offending me. Maybe the author was immature. That's great. Let it remind you what it's like to be young and so excited about…

Do you think it is useful for a Lisp noob?

Read On Lisp before Let Over Lambda, but after a beginner book like Practical Common Lisp.

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#26

Post by P_I_Staker »

varjag wrote: post #7
black-tea wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was great, but I know it's not a book for snowflakes. When I hear someone say "this is right" or "this is wrong", I am able to effortlessly interpret this as "I believe this is right/wrong". It's just being efficient with language. I don't need people to add extra words for fear of offending me. Maybe the author was immature. That's great. Let it remind you what it's like to be young and so excited about…

I'm a long time Lisper myself but also couldn't get through this book. Maybe it's because am a snowflake, but my eyes rolled so often I was scared they'll get stuck in the up position.

This is a big problem I have with books in general. Inevitably, the author drones on about some bullshit, and the book gets thrown across the room, never to be picked up again.

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#27

Post by lispm »

maze-le wrote: post #16
Grue3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common Lisp was finalized in the 90s. And it's not its fault that the other languages haven't caught up yet.

Still, its a trip to hell to maintain any lisp codebase -- especially if it contains macros. I think it is actively hostile to collaborative programming, and that is a structural problem where there is no remedy but obscure programming patterns (which are amplifying these problems in some instances). With that in mind -- boasting about 'the most advanced language' is a bit of a stretch -- to say the least...

http://www.greghendershott.com/fear-of-macros/fear-of-macros...

Which would easily make decades old and still maintained Lisp implementations unmaintainable, since they contain zillions of macros themselves.

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#28

Post by arethuza »

maze-le wrote: post #16
Grue3 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common Lisp was finalized in the 90s. And it's not its fault that the other languages haven't caught up yet.

Still, its a trip to hell to maintain any lisp codebase -- especially if it contains macros. I think it is actively hostile to collaborative programming, and that is a structural problem where there is no remedy but obscure programming patterns (which are amplifying these problems in some instances). With that in mind -- boasting about 'the most advanced language' is a bit of a stretch -- to say the least...

Macros are fine - 'creative' use of reader macros can result in something similar to C pre-processor abuse - opening a file and going "what language is this?".

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#29

Post by varjag »

PuercoPop wrote: post #23
maze-le wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, its a trip to hell to maintain any lisp codebase -- especially if it contains macros. I think it is actively hostile to collaborative programming, and that is a structural problem where there is no remedy but obscure programming patterns (which are amplifying these problems in some instances). With that in mind -- boasting about 'the most advanced language' is a bit of a stretch -- to say the least...

Do you say that out of experience? That is certainly not my _experience_. Lisp codebases tend to be easily "appropiable"

It sounds more like someone's musing of why Lisp should be bad idea rather than anything practical. Doubly so when they don't seem to know what Common Lisp is.

Re: Let over Lambda – Common Lisp Book (2008)

#30

Post by letoverkappa »

coldtea wrote: post #19
wirrbel wrote: post #2

Worth a read because it is one the most condescending computing books I have ever read. While reading I got the impression that I read the text of a really immature fanboy in a web forum of the 2000s. I hope the author has matured by now. Seriously, don't buy this book.

Or, you know, the author knows his stuff and is deservedly condescending in an industry of trends and cargo cults. As in arts and politics, some curmudgeons are needed in every field, if not for anything else, to show that there's another way than the mainstream. (They don't have to be perfectly right either -- it's having a strong perspective that counts, nobody is 100% right anyway).

"Deservedly condescending" is not an actual thing that exists in the world.

The words you're looking for are "writes poorly."

Post reply on HN