On: Lisp, on Lisp, and MySelf
The author shares mixed feelings about Common Lisp, noting frustrations with its syntax but appreciating its flexibility. They recommend "On Lisp" and encourage experimentation and openness to new programming experiences.
Read original article
The author reflects on their experiences with Common Lisp, expressing both frustrations and appreciation for the language. They acknowledge the challenges posed by Lisp's syntax and terminology, such as the use of terms like "terpri" and "multiple-value-bind," which can be off-putting. Despite these issues, the author finds value in Lisp's flexibility and power, noting that it allows for elegant solutions to programming problems. They highlight their enjoyment of the utilities provided in the book "On Lisp," which showcases the language's strengths. The author also shares personal anecdotes about their programming journey, including a preference for Scheme and contributions to Rackete, a Scheme dialect. They conclude with advice on programming, emphasizing the importance of experimentation, sharing code, and learning from mistakes. The author encourages readers to embrace their preferred programming languages while remaining open to new experiences.
- The author discusses frustrations with Common Lisp's syntax and terminology.
- Despite challenges, they appreciate Lisp's flexibility and problem-solving capabilities.
- The book "On Lisp" is recommended for its demonstration of Lisp's strengths.
- Personal anecdotes highlight a preference for Scheme and contributions to Rackete.
- The author offers advice on programming, emphasizing experimentation and learning from mistakes.
Related
I Probably Hate Writing Code in Your Favorite Language
The author critiques popular programming languages like Python and Java, favoring Elixir and Haskell for immutability and functional programming benefits. They emphasize personal language preferences for hobby projects, not sparking conflict.
Ask HN: Why do people say "Lisp has no syntax"? It has infinite syntax
The author discusses Lisp's syntax, highlighting its list-based structure and challenges with constructs like `cond`. They conclude that Lisp's complexity resembles other languages, despite its unique features.
The Liberating Experience of Common Lisp
The author critiques modern programming languages for their complexity, praising Common Lisp for its stability, unique developer experience, and creative freedom, making it preferable for software development.
Why I Like Tcl
The author appreciates Tcl for its elegant syntax, ease of C integration, and event-driven model, but notes its declining popularity, weak type system, and lack of modern libraries.
Lisp Is Not an Acceptable Lisp
The blog post critiques Lisp's fragmentation, outdated features, and poor integration of CLOS, arguing these issues hinder adoption and progress, while Paul Graham's promotion of Arc confuses the community.
0 commentsRelated
I Probably Hate Writing Code in Your Favorite Language
The author critiques popular programming languages like Python and Java, favoring Elixir and Haskell for immutability and functional programming benefits. They emphasize personal language preferences for hobby projects, not sparking conflict.
Ask HN: Why do people say "Lisp has no syntax"? It has infinite syntax
The author discusses Lisp's syntax, highlighting its list-based structure and challenges with constructs like `cond`. They conclude that Lisp's complexity resembles other languages, despite its unique features.
The Liberating Experience of Common Lisp
The author critiques modern programming languages for their complexity, praising Common Lisp for its stability, unique developer experience, and creative freedom, making it preferable for software development.
Why I Like Tcl
The author appreciates Tcl for its elegant syntax, ease of C integration, and event-driven model, but notes its declining popularity, weak type system, and lack of modern libraries.
Lisp Is Not an Acceptable Lisp
The blog post critiques Lisp's fragmentation, outdated features, and poor integration of CLOS, arguing these issues hinder adoption and progress, while Paul Graham's promotion of Arc confuses the community.