Lisp is sin
blogs.msdn.com
Lisp is sin
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Lisp is sin
#2> I know that if I write a C# program today that it can be called by a Boo program which in turn can be called by IronPython.
This is another reason we should be grateful for Clojure. It will have a .Net implementation soon, too.
Re: Lisp is sin
#3[deleted]
Re: Lisp is sin
#4> But I'm willing to bet that a lot more developers will be able to understand this since this is in a programming language they understand well.
This is one argument I don't buy. He talks about the Mort programmers never being able to understand Lisp. I am willing to bet, any Mort programmer who looked at this C# would not be able to understand it. I'm sure they could take advantage of it, but write it themselves, I don't think so. And anyone who could write this, can grasp Lisp themselves.
Re: Lisp is sin
#5> I know that if I write a C# program today that it can be called by a Boo program which in turn can be called by IronPython. This is another reason we should be grateful for Clojure. It will have a .Net implementation soon, too.
For some value of "soon"
Re: Lisp is sin
#6>> one of the driving forces was to let non-geeks build software
He makes the extremely important point that the technology has failed if ordinary people can't use it to get their own work done. However, I've personally seen a project where the aim was essentially to let non-programmers program, and the result was horrendously messy. In large part, I think that's because a lot of people ended up developing that had no understanding of the underlying concepts, and as a result the output was extremely hacked together and unintuitive. I think it's great when people realize that the whole point of most software is to enable regular users to complete a task without worrying about the internal computation, but it's just as important to realize the need to _understand_ what is happening.
Re: Lisp is sin
#7> But I'm willing to bet that a lot more developers will be able to understand this since this is in a programming language they understand well. This is one argument I don't buy. He talks about the Mort programmers never being able to understand Lisp. I am willing to bet, any Mort programmer who looked at this C# would not be able to understand it. I'm sure they could take advantage of it, but write it themselves, I…
Yeah, he says that Lisp is too hard for the common man, and then sort of implies that this is because it doesn't use ALGOL derived syntax. I don't think that's the issue. It's not Mort who's fallen in love with ALGOL syntax, it's the CS graduate Elvis's who cling to their expensively acquired "skills" (priesthood memberships) with religious fervor (he says, as a CS student).
I program in C#, and lambdas and delegates are nice (I can't use expression trees because the company I work for standardizes on .NET 2.0). But the system is too gnarly, still verbose as fuck, and nowhere near as nice as Lisp (as Krishnan freely admits). This just increases the need for sophisticated developer tools and makes things more obscurantist, not less. C# is just another variation on Java, i.e. a way to drag Elvis types 10% closer to Lisp without depriving them of their oh so precious ALGOL syntax.
Fuck the priesthood, seriously.
Re: Lisp is sin
#8> I know that if I write a C# program today that it can be called by a Boo program which in turn can be called by IronPython. This is another reason we should be grateful for Clojure. It will have a .Net implementation soon, too.
For some value of "soon"
http://github.com/richhickey/clojure-clr/tree/master
As a rule, things move pretty fast in Clojure-land. And in the beginning it was dual-platform, so it's not really a new idea either.
Re: Lisp is sin
#9> I know that if I write a C# program today that it can be called by a Boo program which in turn can be called by IronPython. This is another reason we should be grateful for Clojure. It will have a .Net implementation soon, too.
I see two problems with this statement:
1. This only works if you're willing to seclude yourself in the Microsoft Yurt and never leave. Technical benefits aside, history has shown MS is not afraid to abandon projects. It's a dangerous position to take, in my opinion.
And I sincerely doubt a port of Clojure to .NET would result in a 0-difference result. We're back to the exact same problem that plagues other lisp implementations right now, which is to say we haven't really bought much.
2. It's not that different from how things are in the C world, save that you'd share more of your runtime infrastructure. My job has been full of instances where an executable interacts with a diverse set of languages. One example I work on daily includes Erlang, Ruby, Prolog, and C++ all in one space, calling around (in a structured way, of course). The implication that you cannot make modern languages communicate without a single umbrella runtime is demonstrably false.
Re: Lisp is sin
#10> But I'm willing to bet that a lot more developers will be able to understand this since this is in a programming language they understand well. This is one argument I don't buy. He talks about the Mort programmers never being able to understand Lisp. I am willing to bet, any Mort programmer who looked at this C# would not be able to understand it. I'm sure they could take advantage of it, but write it themselves, I…
Yeah, he says that Lisp is too hard for the common man, and then sort of implies that this is because it doesn't use ALGOL derived syntax. I don't think that's the issue. It's not Mort who's fallen in love with ALGOL syntax, it's the CS graduate Elvis's who cling to their expensively acquired "skills" (priesthood memberships) with religious fervor (he says, as a CS student). I program in C#, and lambdas and delegates…
I never did understand this averseness to anything not algol-derived... I personally like Lisps syntax (fuck off, even though it looks different and uses "s-expressions" and code as data and all the rest - ITS STILL SYNTAX) and I like point free syntax and forth-like syntax and prolog intrigues me and ML has interesting syntax too and ...
My point is: ITS JUST SYNTAX! Syntax doesn't define the language, just the look. I do like a nice, clean, concise syntax though.