Live data from Hacker News

Learn Lisp the Hard Way

learnlispthehardway.org

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#11
post #4

I'm about to learn Lisp and/or Clojure(Script). How does this book differ from for e.g Land of Lisp? I was planning to get my fingers dirty with some more light material before digging in the recommendations (PAIP, PCL, SICP).

If you're interested in looking at Clojure, checkout Clojure for the Brave and True.

http://www.braveclojure.com/

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#12
post #6

"Programming MotherFucker - Do you speak it?" -Zed Shaw Couldn't resist the above quote from Zed Shaw; the guy who started the Learn X The Hard Way series. Overall I think these tend to be a very good approach to learn, especially for someone just starting out.

Zed didn't write this... it's some knockoff "hacker" using the same title and format.

Knock-offs are explicitly encouraged:

https://gitorious.org/learn-x-the-hard-way/learn-x-the-hard-...

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#14
I really think the title for this should be changed. The title mimics zedshaw's "Learn X the Hard Way," (which, by the way, is fantastic), but the content doesn't mimic any of the things that make "Learn X the Hard Way" great.

The brilliant thing about zedshaw's "Learn X The Hard Way" is that it focuses on typing the code and learn-by-doing programming. Learn Lisp the Hard Way just explains Lisp then tacks on a few exercises.

I (and presumably Zed, from his previous comments), wouldn't mind if the author had mimicked the entire format, because it works. "Learn Lisp the Hard Way" would be necessarily very different from "Learn JavaScript the Hard Way," but this is just a programming book with a familiar yet misleading title slapped on top.

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#15
> Common Lisp is not a ‘pure’ functional language, however, such as Haskell; it is multi-paradigm like OCaml. You can choose to use the functional paradigm in Common Lisp if you like, but you can also use Procedural, Object-Oriented, Event-Oriented, novel new paradigms like Aspect-Oriented, or mix and match to your hearts content. __Strict Functional programming languages do not offer this flexibility__.

"Strict functional programming languages" could be interpreted as languages with strict evaluation. But I guess it is clear in this context that they mean pure functional languages (or pretty rigorous with regards to purity).

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#16
post #4

I'm about to learn Lisp and/or Clojure(Script). How does this book differ from for e.g Land of Lisp? I was planning to get my fingers dirty with some more light material before digging in the recommendations (PAIP, PCL, SICP).

Practical Common Lisp is the best Common Lisp learning book there is. Land of Lisp is funny and all, but it doesn't make any attempt to really help you get set up with practical tools for interacting, relies on CLISP which is buggy and slow, and is honestly a bit too in love with huge, complex nested data trees and car/cdr wizardry.

PCL will teach you CL, how CL works, in clear language and examples.

Ultimately, though, I realized I prefer the Scheme family (especially Racket). CL is crufty and arcane, and I prefer the Lisp-1 model (this does come at a cost to macro ease of use, but I'm not yet a huge macro fanatic, and once you learn the harder Scheme/Racket macros they can do insanely great things).

For learning Scheme, SICP is the classic, and there's an interactive version of it. I also recommend the Little Schemer for getting yourself in the mindset of learning how to use recursion in clever ways.

For Racket, the go to choices are Realm of Racket (which you can think of as a more clearly written Racket version of LoL but with a slightly less interactive approach), and How To Design Programs (which is quite a lot to get through, being designed as a full year course in CS).

Re: Learn Lisp the Hard Way

#18
post #7

> Lisp—the friendly nickname for Common Lisp Sorry, but this is an awful way to start... just get the Wikipedia definition?

Or dont talk about these prehistoric details _at all_.

Dont talk about the 80s. Dont talk about 27 different and incompatible implementations. Dont talk about lambda calculus or McCarthy. Dont talk about 1001 different editors. Nobody finding about Lisp today cares about these things, it is just annoying noise that dilutes the message.

If youre stealing the title of a Python book, then at least make the experience as newbie-friendly as Python is.

Post reply on HN