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

I still Lisp (2021)

betterprogramming.pub

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#81

Post by mythz »

As author of #Script Lisp [1] I'd say LISP really shines as an embeddable REPL language where you can use it to script larger compiled code-bases like Unity3D games while it's running [2] it's also been useful to open a TCP REPL on a deployed .NET App to inspect its running state and execute its configured dependencies [3].

But I don't use it outside of Scripting .NET Apps anymore other than when needing to perform quick calculations while I'm already in the command-line, I can bring up a quick LISP REPL with `x lisp`.

[1] https://sharpscript.net/lisp/

[2] https://sharpscript.net/lisp/unity

[3] https://sharpscript.net/lisp/#lisp-repl-tcp-server

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#82

Post by todd8 »

kazinator wrote: post #57
packetlost wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lisp as a great tool for learning FP paradigms for application in other languages. IMO, in practice, the metaprogramming that Lisp encourages isn't very good good for the understandability of a codebase, which is IMO one of if not the most important factors for building an applications in a company .

The objective test for whether Lisp metaprogramming contributes to or detracts from the readability of a codebase is to take a sample of the code base and expand the macros, to see whether that is more or less readable.

Macros provide abstractions that often make programs easier to understand. I myself have dozens of the usepackage macro in my Emacs configuration, they hide and standardize the boilerplate that I could use instead. Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about macros in programming.

Taking a code base and expanding the macros to see whether that is more or less readable is a bit like expanding a C++ class hierarchy into assembly language and concluding that this program’s object oriented design is great because it is more readable than the resulting assembly language.

The real question is whether or not there are better alternatives than macros or metaprogramming in the first place. Functions, especially as found in modern languages[1], have proven to be very useful abstraction mechanisms and can often mitigate the lack of fancy macros.

I don’t want macros banned from Lisp, but I don’t miss them in other programming languages. Over exuberant use of fancy macros in Knuth’s brilliant TeX, in my opinion, contributes to the glacial pace of LaTeX development.

[1] By this I mean functions with circumscribed access to non local variables, provisions for choices of ownership of parameters, static scoping, first class functions, closures, and recursion.

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#83

Post by noloblo »

danuker wrote: post #74
throw009 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here, `_from_source` goes from a plain array of tokens to a nested one (tree), depending on their arity: You're 90% there. Lisp notation obviates the need for arity tracking, which is why in lisp + and sum are the same function: scheme@(guile-user)> (+) $416 = 0 scheme@(guile-user)> (+ 1) $417 = 1 scheme@(guile-user)> (+ 1 2) $418 = 3 scheme@(guile-user)> (+ 1 2 3) $419 = 6 Add higher order functions, e.g. (λ (x) (x…

Well, thank you for your feedback. I don't know why I bothered with the flat list in the first place. I might rewrite this library in Clojure. And I might blog about my findings. Cheers!

Thanks between clojure sbcl racket and scheme which is the fastest language of am lisps?

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#84

Post by noloblo »

carapace wrote: post #44
danuker wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I code in assembly in my mind. I just translate it to Lisp so others can understand it. (sarcasm over) If Lisp is so amazing, why does it not get more followers?

"If is so amazing, why doesn't everyone use it?" has got to be one of my least favorite questions. Never mind that it's lazy (in a bad way), it presupposes that people automatically adopt the best available technology or whatever, which is obviously false . But I think the thing that bothers me the most is that, asked with a different attitude and intent, it's usually a good question. E.g. Lisp is so much better than…

What about haskell and erlang how does lisp compare to these heavy weights?

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#85

Post by distcs »

gaze wrote: post #2

I have a suspicion that outside of the 10 people writing lisp seriously—shirakumo, stylewarning, lispm, and some others— there’s more characters of prose praising lisp being written than lisp being written. It’s a great language. I really like it and am using it for some projects. I just want people to actually use it rather than talking about using it. Edit: I’m wrong in the present case! Author has some cool projec…

> Edit: I’m wrong in the present case! Author has some cool projects on GitHub under themetaschemer.

Maybe I am missing something but I visited their GitHub but could not find any cool projects. Clearly there are better examples of people who write Lisp seriously instead of evangelizing it. You have given some good examples of them yourself.

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#86

Post by carapace »

treadmill wrote: post #59
carapace wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If is so amazing, why doesn't everyone use it?" has got to be one of my least favorite questions. Never mind that it's lazy (in a bad way), it presupposes that people automatically adopt the best available technology or whatever, which is obviously false . But I think the thing that bothers me the most is that, asked with a different attitude and intent, it's usually a good question. E.g. Lisp is so much better than…

>Lisp is so much better than pretty much every other programming language >I don't even use it, despite having such a near-worshipful attitude towards it. How do you know that it is so much better then?

In a word, extrapolation. I hope I don't sound too ridiculous, here on Hacker News, but I've kinda devoted my life to computer programming (it's deeper than that, and there's a lot of other stuff going on, but to a first approximation, that's a true statement.) I used to joke that I was reserving a bank of brain cells for that day when it was time to learn Lisp. When that day finally came, I was well prepared and grokked it mildly, but enough to become angry when I saw all the time and energy that has been wasted due to non-use of Lisp. I literally stomped around the house for twenty minutes cussing!

Anyway, I know this is "argument from authority" by some rando on the Internet, so I don't expect you to take it seriously. :)

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#87

Post by packetlost »

todd8 wrote: post #82
kazinator wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The objective test for whether Lisp metaprogramming contributes to or detracts from the readability of a codebase is to take a sample of the code base and expand the macros, to see whether that is more or less readable.

Macros provide abstractions that often make programs easier to understand. I myself have dozens of the usepackage macro in my Emacs configuration, they hide and standardize the boilerplate that I could use instead. Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about macros in programming. Taking a code base and expanding the macros to see whether that is more or less readable is a bit like expanding a C++ class hierarchy…

Agreed. Metaprogramming does have it's place in languages like Lisp where it removes boilerplate or hides details that other programmers likely don't need/want to think about. However it's easy to go too far, which is really what I'm talking about. I think as long as you have first-class and variadic functions you can probably live without macros for like 98% of cases without compromising on readability (as is the case with Python). Alternatively, if you have an easy way to, at develop/compile time, identify exactly what a macro/metaprogram is doing I think it's ok, but that is subject to tooling.

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#88

Post by butt___hugger »

noloblo wrote: post #83
danuker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thank you for your feedback. I don't know why I bothered with the flat list in the first place. I might rewrite this library in Clojure. And I might blog about my findings. Cheers!

Thanks between clojure sbcl racket and scheme which is the fastest language of am lisps?

SBCL, probably. Scheme would be a close second depending on the implementation (Chicken, Gerbil or other compile-to-C impls.) Racket and Clojure are closer in performance to scripting languages like Python.

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#89

Post by Atlas22 »

noloblo wrote: post #83
danuker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thank you for your feedback. I don't know why I bothered with the flat list in the first place. I might rewrite this library in Clojure. And I might blog about my findings. Cheers!

Thanks between clojure sbcl racket and scheme which is the fastest language of am lisps?

If you are referring to fastest in terms of wall & CPU time running. Without spending a lot of time optimizing your code yourself, I suspect SBCL would take the crown for vast majority of cases. If you do hyper optimize, the gap with scheme largely closes (sometime scheme wins, sometimes SBCL). So I'd go with SBCL if all else is the same feature wise to you. That said, the last serious benchmark I did of lisps was ~2010 so optimization may have changed since then and of course they were not very rigorus benchmarks (just my compute-bound workload at the time, that primarily boiled down to mostly integer ops). Debian language benchmarks game has some benchmarks written for sbcl and racket that may be good for comparing implementations yourself if interested. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Re: I still Lisp (2021)

#90

Post by Atlas22 »

noloblo wrote: post #84
carapace wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If is so amazing, why doesn't everyone use it?" has got to be one of my least favorite questions. Never mind that it's lazy (in a bad way), it presupposes that people automatically adopt the best available technology or whatever, which is obviously false . But I think the thing that bothers me the most is that, asked with a different attitude and intent, it's usually a good question. E.g. Lisp is so much better than…

What about haskell and erlang how does lisp compare to these heavy weights?

Erlang is largely a different kind of niche than Haskell and lisp. Its more focused on distributed and reliable processing than more general purpose. In effect its the Actor model taken to the extreme. Where I'd categorize Haskell and lisp more general purpose but they take different approach. Lisp the more "keep it simple" approach and Haskell the high theory approach. I've yet to encounter someone that claims expertise in haskell that isn't obviously lying or delusional as it is probably the largest language feature wise. I've been learning it for years but still have yet to find the "target use case" that it is the best tool for the job. It certainly is worth learning about even if only for the new perspectives on problems it encourages.

At least in my opinion: Lisp is amazing for its simplicity and homoiconicness and the great powers that come with those. Erlang is amazing for its approach to distributed computation and reliability. Haskell is amazing for at least its theory, and probably more I'm not yet aware of.

Post reply on HN