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

Learn Lisp the Hard Way

learnlispthehardway.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#61

Post by wglb »

gaigepr wrote: post #58
gre wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DSL for string formatting certainly doesn't look simple. (format t "~{~@(~A~)~^ ~}, because ~{~A~^ ~} is easier!" llthw (cddr llthw))

I am only recently a lisp user but honestly, how is the format function far from: printf("something %s then %d finally %f!", "asd", 1, 1.2) As mentioned, there is a loop built into format. Since lisp also has a (list) function eg: (list 'a 'b 'c 1) I still don't see an argument beyond familiarity with the C style printf syntax for why format is bad/unreadable.

There is a loop embedded in the lisp version.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#62

Post by kazinator »

Udo wrote: post #35

" that Lisp is not already the de-facto programming language is just a reflection of the state of the world as a whole—only a very small percentage of the population are excited for the technological singularity, but the singularity is coming no matter how much people complain. " As a transhumanist myself I resent the arrogance that led to this ridiculous appropriation. Yes, Lisp is pretty great, but the use of other…

Ignorance of things like Lisp is a cultural defect in computer science. It's just a symptom of a greater problem: lack of awareness of what has already been done by prior generations. If electronics engineering were like CS, some twit would be reinventing the long-tailed differential pair today, and trying to get a patent on it, with full backing from his research institute or employer.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#63

Post by fisher-lebo »

Udo wrote: post #35

" that Lisp is not already the de-facto programming language is just a reflection of the state of the world as a whole—only a very small percentage of the population are excited for the technological singularity, but the singularity is coming no matter how much people complain. " As a transhumanist myself I resent the arrogance that led to this ridiculous appropriation. Yes, Lisp is pretty great, but the use of other…

There's a lot of religious imagery in the text with discussion about fractal cosmology, mysticism, Lisp's natural connection with the human mind, etc.

It seems as though the author is trying to sell a religious experience to his readers. If that is the case, that's interesting in the sense that it is certainly unlike any other programming text I've read. I personally think evangelizing Lisp should be in the form of making it more familiar, human, and relatable to the average programmer, but I can't help but to respect the sheer uniqueness of the approach.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#65

Post by PuercoPop »

Regarding the tone I concede it is a little over the top, but considering the author works for D-Wave[1] building the future of (Quantum) Computing I think it is not without merit.

It may be better to leave the intro part for the end as it may alienate programmers that have preconceived notions about lisp based on hearsay and not actual experience (i.e. it's enlightening, it's old, full of cruft, hard to read, it's functional, Clojure is the future of lisp).

It is also very much a WIP that the author didn't submit so keep that in mind.

I hope he gets to writing the chapter on Quantum computing: http://learnlispthehardway.org/book/3-14-0-quantum-computing...

[1]: http://www.dwavesys.com/

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#66

Post by gre »

nightski wrote: post #41
nohaxplz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you just got told you're not one of the best programmers in the world and are still in shock about it.

Simple syntax does not a simple programming language make.

Simple syntax "Hello world!"

  ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>++>+>->>+[>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.>+.>++.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#67

Post by ScottBurson »

gre wrote: post #49
wes-exp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Lisp looks foreign doesn't mean that it's harder. The syntax is different , but it is also very simple . If this were untrue, Scheme wouldn't have survived as a teaching language all these years.

The DSL for string formatting certainly doesn't look simple. (format t "~{~@(~A~)~^ ~}, because ~{~A~^ ~} is easier!" llthw (cddr llthw))

It's complex because it's powerful. ~A is the most common directive; it simply prints an object. '~{...~}' (braces) iterates over a list, applying the directives within it to the list elements. Within that construct, '~^' exits if the last element of the list has been consumed; it's used here to keep the separating space from being printed after the last element. '~@(...~)' (parens) capitalizes words in the output of the directives it contains, downcasing the non-initial character of each word.

So there's a lot more power here than in 'printf' control strings. If you find the more exotic notation unintuitive -- and you certainly wouldn't be alone -- you don't have to use it.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#68

Post by onetimeusename »

Udo wrote: post #35

" that Lisp is not already the de-facto programming language is just a reflection of the state of the world as a whole—only a very small percentage of the population are excited for the technological singularity, but the singularity is coming no matter how much people complain. " As a transhumanist myself I resent the arrogance that led to this ridiculous appropriation. Yes, Lisp is pretty great, but the use of other…

Something I find ironic is that Zed Shaw dislikes both haskell and lisp programmers for a variety of reasons that would only provoke if I put them here, some of which you already mentioned. Search "lisp" in second source.

[1]http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2010/05/31/computer-science-i...

[2]http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/intro.html

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#69

Post by Udo »

kazinator wrote: post #62
Udo wrote: post #35

" that Lisp is not already the de-facto programming language is just a reflection of the state of the world as a whole—only a very small percentage of the population are excited for the technological singularity, but the singularity is coming no matter how much people complain. " As a transhumanist myself I resent the arrogance that led to this ridiculous appropriation. Yes, Lisp is pretty great, but the use of other…

Ignorance of things like Lisp is a cultural defect in computer science. It's just a symptom of a greater problem: lack of awareness of what has already been done by prior generations. If electronics engineering were like CS, some twit would be reinventing the long-tailed differential pair today, and trying to get a patent on it, with full backing from his research institute or employer.

That's not the issue. It's about whether you think that Lisp is the only objectively correct answer whenever the question arises "what language are we going to use for this?".

Willful ignorance about other languages and their features is as much a cultural failure as, the hypothecial, unwillingness to learn about Lisp.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#70

Post by noblethrasher »

mkautzm wrote: post #20
JasonFruit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you enumerate the lies for us? Your comment is arresting but not enlightening without more information.

Lisp is the hardly the simplest language. It has way less 'stuff' to learn, but that 'stuff' in imperative languages is generally useful abstractions that you don't to learn, but instead simply know of. By that measurement, x86 Assembly is really the simplest language of them all, but I don't think I need to explain why that's equally absurd. Lisp is a difficult language due to it's density and unreadability. Useful…

What you mean to say is that Lisp is simple but not easy, but that's true of a lot of things.

You might enjoy this: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

Post reply on HN