Lispers
lispers.org
Lispers
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: Lispers
#2Fanatics deliberately abandon objective judgement.
Many of the quotes makes me question the authors experience. Everything is relative. Compared to Fortran, Lisp is all that and more. Compared to modern languages (say, Haskell), not so much.
Re: Lispers
#3What are some examples of open source Lisp projects and codebases whose features and elegance could have only been executed as well as they are in the language, or are just great codebases in general to study?
Re: Lispers
#4What are some examples of open source Lisp projects and codebases whose features and elegance could have only been executed as well as they are in the language, or are just great codebases in general to study?
I think Emacs is the best example.
Re: Lispers
#5Lisp is a beautiful language (or, to be more precise, set of languages). It is absolutely essential to a computer science education.
It also gets unwieldy when programs get complex.
Re: Lispers
#6It sounds like hypberbole, but the quotes are true. I was professionally writing Objective-C, C++ and eventually Swift for many years before using Clojure full-time for a year. My Objective-C, Swift and C++ don't look the same any more. It does change how you think about programming, in any language. And makes you better across the board.
Re: Lispers
#7It sounds like hypberbole, but the quotes are true. I was professionally writing Objective-C, C++ and eventually Swift for many years before using Clojure full-time for a year. My Objective-C, Swift and C++ don't look the same any more. It does change how you think about programming, in any language. And makes you better across the board.
But was it Clojure or perhaps functional programming in general that "changed how you think about programming"?
Re: Lispers
#8What are some examples of open source Lisp projects and codebases whose features and elegance could have only been executed as well as they are in the language, or are just great codebases in general to study?
GNU Guix. It uses code staging a lot, which works best in a language in which you can trivially pass around code as data.
It also demonstrates that Scheme is flexible enough to easily implement features that the language designers did not, such as monads and laziness. While both can be done in almost any language, I think that Scheme's macros allow for exceptionally seamless implementations.
Re: Lispers
#9It sounds like hypberbole, but the quotes are true. I was professionally writing Objective-C, C++ and eventually Swift for many years before using Clojure full-time for a year. My Objective-C, Swift and C++ don't look the same any more. It does change how you think about programming, in any language. And makes you better across the board.
But was it Clojure or perhaps functional programming in general that "changed how you think about programming"?
I can't answer for GP, but to me personally, I had prior experience in both Haskell and Erlang before jumping into Clojure. And I can say that I share the feeling: Lisp changed the way I approach programming. Probably metaprogramming (the all-mighty macros & co.) and REPL-driven development are the two most important things I learned from Clojure (and Lisp in general).
And I won't say that the paradigm shift to functional programming didn't broaden my view either, my point is that there is more to Lisp than being functional-ish.
Re: Lispers
#10Fanatics deliberately abandon objective judgement. Many of the quotes makes me question the authors experience. Everything is relative. Compared to Fortran, Lisp is all that and more. Compared to modern languages (say, Haskell), not so much.
Haskell appeared in 1990.
Around 1987 I was as a student sitting in front of a real Lisp Machine, a Symbolics 3600, running in an AI research lab for natural language interaction. The machine with a stack-based CPU ran an object-oriented operating system written in a million lines of Lisp, with full source code and runtime changes.
There is nothing which will blow your mind like that.