the fact that there are repeated statements like "why X" where X = some language, points to rationalization more than reality; if the language is really so good, there won't be any need for a "why" articles on it. I haven't seen a repeated series of "Why C#" or "Why Go" or "Why Swift" articles. I also think Lisp is way overrated. Swift is based on Miranda which is based on Hope which borrows heavily from SML...There's nothing Swift can't do better that Lisp can.
Why Lisp?
81–90 of 339 posts
Re: Why Lisp?
#82the fact that there are repeated statements like "why X" where X = some language, points to rationalization more than reality; if the language is really so good, there won't be any need for a "why" articles on it. I haven't seen a repeated series of "Why C#" or "Why Go" or "Why Swift" articles. I also think Lisp is way overrated. Swift is based on Miranda which is based on Hope which borrows heavily from SML...There'…
Pretty sure Microsoft's marketing department actively pushed C# at least, there was no need for grassroots advocacy in this case.
Re: Why Lisp?
#83Appreciating what Lisp is capable of doing (think macros), and having worked through SICP some twenty years ago, and after having tried to make a deep dive in CL and Emacs Lisp two years ago, I come to the conclusion that there is no silver bullet in Lisp-land. Python is a good enough Lisp, as Peter Norvig has concluded. And it’s got all batteries included. Ain‘t nothing it can’t do. Building websites, doing maths, a…
Python compares woefully for metaprogramming & creating domain specific languages, a field that Lisp is far & away best in class in.
Re: Why Lisp?
#84> The developers of Lisp give you the full powers that they had to develop the language. So someone joining the project doesn't just have to learn Lisp, they have to learn Inhouse Lisp? And the abstractions provided by modern languages are woefully incomplete? > Lisp code written some 30 years ago will most of the time, without issue, work on a modern Common Lisp implementation You could say the same about Java and 2…
It's that you can do a lot with macros, at compile time -with all the language at hand, not a subset.
https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/a-gentle-introduction-to-...
https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-t...
Re: Why Lisp?
#85the fact that there are repeated statements like "why X" where X = some language, points to rationalization more than reality; if the language is really so good, there won't be any need for a "why" articles on it. I haven't seen a repeated series of "Why C#" or "Why Go" or "Why Swift" articles. I also think Lisp is way overrated. Swift is based on Miranda which is based on Hope which borrows heavily from SML...There'…
I do not agree. I do not have time to familiarize myself with every language in existence to such a level that their strengths become obvious to me. It is perfectly reasonable for a expert in a language to write an article on why to use it.
Re: Why Lisp?
#86Reminder, HN is built/runs-on a dialect of Lisp (Arc). On a single server. On a single core.
genuinely amazing, is there a writeup on this?
Re: Why Lisp?
#87the fact that there are repeated statements like "why X" where X = some language, points to rationalization more than reality; if the language is really so good, there won't be any need for a "why" articles on it. I haven't seen a repeated series of "Why C#" or "Why Go" or "Why Swift" articles. I also think Lisp is way overrated. Swift is based on Miranda which is based on Hope which borrows heavily from SML...There'…
Different languages are better and worse at different things. It's a really complicated design space. There probably are some which are better than others on every axis, but generally making one better at some things makes it worse at others.
Re: Why Lisp?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can enumerate some projects using it, and even more so, if you need to, then it's much closer to dead than alive. It's like saying "The Vatican still uses latin, it's not a completely dead language".
This cuts both ways. Just because you’re ignorant about the usage of something doesn’t mean it’s in fact not being used.
If you need to do your homework to tell whether a language is used, then it's not particularly alive.
The point isn't if it's used by some (that's true for all languages, there are some companies doing stuff in whatever niche language you want, and if you look enough, you'll find this or that project in some FAANG using any old language, they might even use Oberon or Dylan.
But that's not the point when we usually say it's "dead" or "alive" (else all languages would be "alive", even Algol, I'm pretty sure there are projects there still done in Algol). So, it is not about there being some use, but about whether the language is mass adopted, or smaller but growing, or dwinlding, past its heyday, and only used by the occasional outlier.
To drive the point home, there are swing bands playing 30s swing, and even clubs and events devoted to that genre. But swing music is pretty much dead in the sense we're talking about, whereas in the 20s and 30s it was pretty much alive.
Re: Why Lisp?
#89Re: Why Lisp?
#90Appreciating what Lisp is capable of doing (think macros), and having worked through SICP some twenty years ago, and after having tried to make a deep dive in CL and Emacs Lisp two years ago, I come to the conclusion that there is no silver bullet in Lisp-land. Python is a good enough Lisp, as Peter Norvig has concluded. And it’s got all batteries included. Ain‘t nothing it can’t do. Building websites, doing maths, a…
> building compilers
It seems like, if anything, a language built around creating and traversing tree structures would be perfect for making compilers. But, hey, what do I know? :)