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

Why Lisp? (2015)

blog.rongarret.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#141

Post by spicybright »

Jtsummers wrote: post #60
spicybright wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate a few specific points on this? Curious because I'm on the same boat. I was annoyed for a while how ruby convention uses '?' characters at the end of method names that return a boolean. I'm not even that old and I still want to yell `[a-zA-Z0-9_]+` identifier names or get off my lawn.

Why would you want to limit yourself so drastically in what you can express with function and variable names?

I don't, I always follow whatever convention the langue/code base uses.

I'm just saying like GP I'm shallow and prefer C style identifiers where it makes sense to.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#142

Post by pdimitar »

anthk wrote: post #131
dunefox wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything zig or rust are the successor, Go is a language from the 90s. We can agree on C++ and java, though.

Go is a rehash of Alef/Limbo. Is not from the 90's. If you say so, we could say the same on Zig. BTW, UTF-8 dates back to the 90's, good luck finding a better alternative. And TCP/IP it's even older, but it works. Something being newer doesn't make it better.

When we're talking about strong type systems and classes of bugs eliminated just because the program compiled (a la OCaml, Rust, Haskell)... yes, newer is better.

Your argument isn't universal; something being older doesn't say much about its quality either.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#143

Post by spicybright »

Jtsummers wrote: post #54
spicybright wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind elaborating a bit on this? I've actually never heard of Quicklisp.

https://www.quicklisp.org/ It's a package manager for Common Lisp. It's supported in pretty much every implementation (probably every, but I won't say that with certainty).

Ohhh, duh. I've even used that before a few times but forgot lmao

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#144

Post by brabel »

bmitc wrote: post #134
brabel wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... it goes well beyond any Lisp/Scheme (and many modern languages) in terms of having a practical but expansive ecosystem with a strong set of idiomatic conventions. Does it, really?? Common Lisp is an ANSI Standard, I don't know how you get a more "strong set of idiomatic conventions" than that. And it's been "done" for 20 years now! People continue to use it just as it is, and there's very little pressure to cha…

This type of response is also why Common Lisp isn’t more popular. :) Having a standard has little to do with how people write code, which is what I meant by idiomatic conventions. Elixir is not a “cool, hyped” language in the sense that you mean. Elixir is basically a wrapper around Erlang and OTP, which is an old technology (much older than ANSI Common Lisp), that provides several improvements in terms of developer…

> This type of response is also why Common Lisp isn’t more popular. :)

What does a response from a blunt commenter like me has to do with the success of CL? Do you mean CL users are prone to responding like me? I would say users of any language that's being dismissed as being old would react similarly.

> Elixir is basically a wrapper around Erlang and OTP

Yes, I know, I was going to say that Elixir itself is nothing new as it's just Erlang with a more palatable syntax on top... nothing really new, Erlang is about as old as Common Lisp.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#145

Post by bmitc »

brabel wrote: post #144
bmitc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This type of response is also why Common Lisp isn’t more popular. :) Having a standard has little to do with how people write code, which is what I meant by idiomatic conventions. Elixir is not a “cool, hyped” language in the sense that you mean. Elixir is basically a wrapper around Erlang and OTP, which is an old technology (much older than ANSI Common Lisp), that provides several improvements in terms of developer…

> This type of response is also why Common Lisp isn’t more popular. :) What does a response from a blunt commenter like me has to do with the success of CL? Do you mean CL users are prone to responding like me? I would say users of any language that's being dismissed as being old would react similarly. > Elixir is basically a wrapper around Erlang and OTP Yes, I know, I was going to say that Elixir itself is nothing…

I'm not dismissing Common Lisp. I've actively searched for and applied to jobs that advertised using Common Lisp.

I just don't see the Common Lisp community rallying to make it more cohesive (and thus more popular and attractive), which is fine, but it means it won't get used outside of enthusiasts bringing it into niche pockets of companies. I have the same complaints with F#, which is one of my favorite languages, because there are just too many libraries/frameworks that are just one-off side projects of a single developer. (There are of course separate reasons for F#'s lack of uptake.)

If the entire Common Lisp ecosystem is as good as people say it is, then I don't see why it couldn't go through a path like Erlang did with Elixir and even so without a syntax change (just a nice bundling of the ecosystem and tooling) instead of just relying on war stories of its use and telling people they just don't get it.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#146

Post by spicybright »

Zababa wrote: post #120
reikonomusha wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a lot more practical than you think if you’re willing to roll up your sleeve and do the work. Fortunately, people have already done the work for you. [1] [1] https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton

I don't think it would be more practical than just using a typed language in the first place.

Not really getting the argument, the above lib pretty much makes it a superset that adds types.

And while I don't know the scope of the library, if they have a way to not allow dynamic features then you're already starting from a having a typed language (with one library dependency).

Only now you can keep building up the type system in ways that benefit your project, unlike in most non lisp languages.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#147

Post by filoeleven »

gaze wrote: post #69

Why does it feel like there’s more prose about lisp being written than lisp code? I swear there’s like 15 people writing Common Lisp — Nikodemus, Shirakumo, Stylewarning, Christian Schafmeister, Borodust, the ITA folks, and maybe 2 startups.

Lisp code is much terser than prose.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#148

Post by gaze »

filoeleven wrote: post #147
gaze wrote: post #69

Why does it feel like there’s more prose about lisp being written than lisp code? I swear there’s like 15 people writing Common Lisp — Nikodemus, Shirakumo, Stylewarning, Christian Schafmeister, Borodust, the ITA folks, and maybe 2 startups.

Lisp code is much terser than prose.

It’s not significantly terser than other languages, which don’t feature this enormous asymmetry.

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#149

Post by medo-bear »

bmitc wrote: post #139
medo-bear wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you write compilers in elixir ? how does its interactive programming compare to that of Lisp ?

I don't claim that Elixir is the language to end all languages. My comment was more about the holistic ecosystem that keeps improving. There's one common development and project management tool (Mix). There's one package manager (Hex). There's OTP, Ecto, Phoenix, Liveview, etc. There's the Elixir Forum for questions. I'd use F# for writing compilers. Interactive programming is probably better in Common Lisp and also…

> I don't claim that Elixir is the language to end all languages.

i don't know much elixir. i was asking because those things interest me and they are what drove me to common lisp. for my purposes i need an industrial fast interactive language that is self hosted and well tested in the wild. i want a fast language that is well suited to make custom symbolic computer algebra procedures, custom differential algorithms, custom probabilistic programs, and custom data processing solutions. i think that common lisp best fits the criteria for my use case

Re: Why Lisp? (2015)

#150

Post by medo-bear »

bmitc wrote: post #145
brabel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This type of response is also why Common Lisp isn’t more popular. :) What does a response from a blunt commenter like me has to do with the success of CL? Do you mean CL users are prone to responding like me? I would say users of any language that's being dismissed as being old would react similarly. > Elixir is basically a wrapper around Erlang and OTP Yes, I know, I was going to say that Elixir itself is nothing…

I'm not dismissing Common Lisp. I've actively searched for and applied to jobs that advertised using Common Lisp. I just don't see the Common Lisp community rallying to make it more cohesive (and thus more popular and attractive), which is fine, but it means it won't get used outside of enthusiasts bringing it into niche pockets of companies. I have the same complaints with F#, which is one of my favorite languages,…

it might be that convincing people to switch to common lisp is a lot like convincing people to switch to linux from windows. is it possible that there might be people who do not care much about ready-made tools or frameworks and enjoy engineering solutions from a more fundamental level? i think those people definitely exist and i personally rather enjoy hearing their war stories
Post reply on HN