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

A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

scotto.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 180 posts

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#3

Post by criddell »

Another Lisp of note is AutoLISP.

Elisp::Emacs as AutoLISP::AutoCAD. AutoLISP was my first introduction to Lisp-style language. When I first started using it (1987) for macros in AutoCAD, I really had no idea what Lisp was. It was just a fun and easy way to automate AutoCAD.

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#4

Post by 0xb0565e486 »

I really wanted to Lisp as a main programming language, and sometimes I still do.

I just find readability such a hurdle regardless of how long I used it. I didn't find that it ever became as natural as the other group of programming languages.

I find a procedural style of programming so much easier to reason about, both when writing and reading.

Either way, I'm really happy I took some time to learn it and use it a little at some point.

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#5

Post by hnarayanan »

criddell wrote: post #3

Another Lisp of note is AutoLISP. Elisp::Emacs as AutoLISP::AutoCAD. AutoLISP was my first introduction to Lisp-style language. When I first started using it (1987) for macros in AutoCAD, I really had no idea what Lisp was. It was just a fun and easy way to automate AutoCAD.

I had forgotten about this. The last I saw this was 20+ years ago!

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#6

Post by dieggsy »

CL also has pretty much arbitrarily extensible syntax:

- https://sr.ht/~dieggsy/whisper/

- https://dieggsy.com/json-literals.html

And could also be used to build languages, supporting more modern programming paradigms (though yes, I believe Racket does make this easier):

- https://coalton-lang.github.io/

I also might have written the Common Lisp example using reduce as well, which is in the standard library, but that's preference. Nice to have the option though:

  (defun calculate (instructions)
    (reduce
     (lambda (result op-value)
       (destructuring-bind (operation value) op-value
         (case operation
           (:add (+ result value))
           (:subtract (- result value))
           (:multiply (* result value)))))
     instructions
     :initial-value 0))

  (calculate '((:add 5) (:multiply 3) (:subtract 4))) ;; => 11

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#7

Post by dieggsy »

0xb0565e486 wrote: post #4

I really wanted to Lisp as a main programming language, and sometimes I still do. I just find readability such a hurdle regardless of how long I used it. I didn't find that it ever became as natural as the other group of programming languages. I find a procedural style of programming so much easier to reason about, both when writing and reading. Either way, I'm really happy I took some time to learn it and use it a l…

For me, the most effective way to read Lisp is to essentially forget the parentheses (I shadow them out in matching, low contrast colors) and go almost entirely by indentation. I find this makes it more similar to reading other languages, though granted not exactly the same.

You do have to keep up with the parentheses of course, but editor settings or extensions can make this automatic if not invisible.

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#8

Post by groundzeros2015 »

0xb0565e486 wrote: post #4

I really wanted to Lisp as a main programming language, and sometimes I still do. I just find readability such a hurdle regardless of how long I used it. I didn't find that it ever became as natural as the other group of programming languages. I find a procedural style of programming so much easier to reason about, both when writing and reading. Either way, I'm really happy I took some time to learn it and use it a l…

(Heresy alert. Inb4 homoinconcity)

I do find that most of my lisp skills carry over to JavaScript quite well while allowing me to write imperative functions more fluently.

Prog blocks are pretty good. I wonder if another DSL could be better.

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#9

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

(Disclaimer: CL weenie) A decent and balanced writeup IMO. But it should really have contained the following:

Warning about the issues that come with ANSI CL's frozen spec (threads/sockets/unicode/extensible sequences/gray streams/etc... as extensions with a varying amount of support with compatibility layers often available to write portable-ish code, "bolted-on" CLOS never fully integrated) and its various rust spots, not just the good points.

Mention that CL has provisions for gradual typing (with limits) which are exploited by SBCL.

Scheme, obviously, along with the same warning as CL about pain of writing portable code that interacts with the OS (does it have compatibility layers like CL?) amplified by the R6RS vs unfinished R7RS-large mess.

A few words about the build system/third-party packaging situation and alternative implementations.

Re: A Road to Lisp: Which Lisp

#10

Post by groundzeros2015 »

For me the complete spec is the killer feature. You can learn Common Lisp in 1990 and write it the same now. As long as we can keep the compilers alive it will be forever.

It’s funny to me that it was critiqued for being “bloated” when now it looks like a focused minimal library.

Post reply on HN