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The blog post critiques Lisp's fragmentation, outdated features, and poor integration of CLOS, arguing these issues hinder adoption and progress, while Paul Graham's promotion of Arc confuses the community.
Read original article
The blog post discusses the challenges and shortcomings of the Lisp programming language, particularly in the context of its adoption and usability. The author reflects on the popularity of Eric Kidd's article that argued for Ruby as an acceptable Lisp, which sparked extensive debate. The author argues that Lisp is not an acceptable language due to its fragmentation, with multiple dialects like Scheme and Common Lisp, making it difficult for newcomers to choose a version. This confusion, combined with the outdated specifications and lack of modern features, hampers its adoption. The author also critiques Paul Graham's influence on Lisp, suggesting that his promotion of a new language, Arc, detracts from the existing Lisp community. Additionally, the post highlights issues with the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), which the author believes is poorly integrated into the language. Overall, the author expresses frustration with the Lisp community's reluctance to acknowledge these issues, which they believe stifles progress and adoption.
- Lisp suffers from fragmentation with multiple dialects, complicating its adoption.
- Outdated specifications and missing modern features hinder Lisp's usability.
- Paul Graham's promotion of Arc has created confusion and detracted from Common Lisp.
- The integration of the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) is seen as problematic.
- The Lisp community's reluctance to address these issues limits its growth and relevance.
Related
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.
Objective-C is just, like, a leaky abstraction over C
Objective-C is described as a "leaky abstraction" over C, integrating modern programming features and enabling interoperability. Its design is effective, with Objective-S proposed as a streamlined variant.
Why Does EmacsLisp Suck?
EmacsLisp faces criticism for lacking modern features like lexical scoping and multithreading, relying on global state, and having cumbersome APIs, while users are divided on the need for reform.
LSP: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The author discusses the Language Server Protocol's improvements to IDE tooling, critiques its lack of openness and concurrency issues, and calls for a more collaborative development approach to better serve the community.
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.
1 commentsRelated
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.
Objective-C is just, like, a leaky abstraction over C
Objective-C is described as a "leaky abstraction" over C, integrating modern programming features and enabling interoperability. Its design is effective, with Objective-S proposed as a streamlined variant.
Why Does EmacsLisp Suck?
EmacsLisp faces criticism for lacking modern features like lexical scoping and multithreading, relying on global state, and having cumbersome APIs, while users are divided on the need for reform.
LSP: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The author discusses the Language Server Protocol's improvements to IDE tooling, critiques its lack of openness and concurrency issues, and calls for a more collaborative development approach to better serve the community.
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.