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

Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

daninus14.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 339 posts

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#151

Post by bsdpufferfish »

m463 wrote: post #105
Karellen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But idiomatic Lisp code really does use linked lists extensively, Idiomatic python code uses lists extensively. In my (somewhat limited) experience, they're the default data structure to use for a lot of algorithms. Slightly more accurately, a lot of stuff in python uses sequences extensively, which are implemented by a number of types - but the default sequence is a list. And strings are lists. Yeah, if a list doe…

I like python significantly more than lisp. There are so many ways to express yourself in python that are troublesome in lisp. I actually think list manipulation is easier in python than lisp. I don't know, is there a lisp dialect that makes common data structures available in a multitude of ways? I seem to be able to manipulate lists quite easily in python, and switch back and forth to sets or hashes. but in lisp yo…

You only have to dig because you are less familiar with the language.

> copy list

Almost all functions have a copying and destructive variant.

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#152

Post by bsdpufferfish »

BaculumMeumEst wrote: post #2

Package management kind of sucks, the ecosystem sucks, other languages continually improve but nobody will ever advance the CL standard. There is nothing compelling about the language to people who aren't already Lisp people.

> nobody will ever advance the CL standard

And that’s a good thing.

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#154

Post by bsdpufferfish »

harry8 wrote: post #74

You want to learn programming. Lets get started - how long does that take to bang out 10 exercises? Order the estimated results from quickest to slowest. Here's my estimates (don't like them, show yours! It'll be interesting): - Scratch - python/perl/ruby/javascript - C/Java - Swift/Rust - Anything else running on the jvm - - a whole lot of daylight - - common lisp. And many if not most will fail to get to the first…

You’re biasing yourself to what you already (probably looks like C). There is nothing more difficult about some paren except you didn’t learn it first.

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#156

Post by bsdpufferfish »

bsder wrote: post #72

Ecosystem. For example, the Common Lisp ecosystem never converges to a single implementation of any single "thing". Take Rust. You may not like Serde for serialization, but the ecosystem has converged to it. Similarly, Tokio. You use them until you understand why you need something else and then bite the bullet of going against the tide when you can't make them work anymore. Okay, so what serialization has Common Lis…

That’s also true of c++ and C and doesn’t hold them back.

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#157

Post by djaouen »

m463 wrote: post #105
Karellen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But idiomatic Lisp code really does use linked lists extensively, Idiomatic python code uses lists extensively. In my (somewhat limited) experience, they're the default data structure to use for a lot of algorithms. Slightly more accurately, a lot of stuff in python uses sequences extensively, which are implemented by a number of types - but the default sequence is a list. And strings are lists. Yeah, if a list doe…

I like python significantly more than lisp. There are so many ways to express yourself in python that are troublesome in lisp. I actually think list manipulation is easier in python than lisp. I don't know, is there a lisp dialect that makes common data structures available in a multitude of ways? I seem to be able to manipulate lists quite easily in python, and switch back and forth to sets or hashes. but in lisp yo…

Look into Hylang.

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#158

Post by [deleted] »

thot_experiment wrote: post #95
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like Rust is easy; it's just responsible, 21st century C code with more data structures in the standard library. Functional languages are like being forced to fry an egg while on LSD. Eventually, you get the hang of it, and you start seeing Spinoza's God in the form constants, but holy shit was it difficult! It's a totally disorienting and mind-bending challenge of re-learning how to do the most basic things!

I find Rust so onerous, I gave it a fair shot, and I see it's merits but I just don't find myself in situations where Rust feels like the right fit very often. Where the cost of it feels worth the benefit. Writing C is and always has been an absolute joy for me and almost everything I'd want to do in Rust I'd rather tackle in C with a big smile on my face.

[deleted]

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#159

Post by thaumasiotes »

o11c wrote: post #145
thaumasiotes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want shared structure of lists in Python, use `itertools.chain`. That would involve zero shared structure. itertools.chain is just an iterator that iterates one iterable and then, instead of declaring that it's done, goes on to iterate another one. Shared structure between lists means that two lists refer to some of the same regions of memory.

And multiple `itertools.chain` instances pointing to the same list chunk(s) also use sharing.

OK, that is true, but that approach would have the significant downside that you can't pass over a list more than once.

Re: Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming language?

#160

Post by pests »

derp38726 wrote: post #134
zoogeny wrote: post #90

I admit that I haven't touched CL in decades and my most recent exposure to Lisp-ish stuff is writing a bit of Scheme and reading a bit of Clojure (maybe some elisp too). I like a lot of the ideas behind Lisp-like languages but I dislike writing in them. Parenthesis, as others mention, start to get unwieldy. I often feel like I'm expressing myself "in reverse", almost like I'm programming in Yoda speak. I mean by tha…

>Perhaps it doesn't occur to them that people try it out and then leave and never come back. Once the code is data is code clicks there’s no going back. When you read other languages you just see a lisp DSL, you can’t unsee it because you’ve changed.

Isn't this the exact "if people only knew" attitude he mentioned?
Post reply on HN