"If you think the greatest pleasure in programming comes from getting a lot done with code that simply and clearly expresses your intention, then programming in Common Lisp is likely to be about the most fun you can have with a computer. You'll get more done, faster, using it than you would using pretty much any other language."
So /prog/, do you agree?
I am not very familiar with lisp but I have decided now that I am going to spend some time learning it. I just want to know whether this statement is complete bullshit or not, before I get started. Even if it's not true, I still want to learn lisp.
I mean, I'm sure I could be more productive in CL than in, say, C, but what about compared to Ruby or another such language, which frankly make me frighten myself with my own productivity.
do this in common lisp and you will have your answer: $a=$_=pop;s/./$'H./;y/:-@[-` --{-/A-Ga-f./;$_=crypt$a,$_;/.../;print$'
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-20 12:05 ID:tAXBQUsx
>>1
Not completely untrue compared to many other languages. Haskell does it better, though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-20 13:27 ID:fBk7Nd3C
>>1
Reaching for the parenthesis buttons stops you from being able to produce code faster than a brainfuck programmer. I suspect the real-life EXPERT PROGRAMMERs, such as Paul Graham, have remapped some keys to write code faster. I guess you could use the left and right control keys to insert parenthesis, and map control on caps lock.
Oh, and use Haskell.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-20 14:03 ID:tAXBQUsx
>>4 is actually partly right. If the OP is serious about getting into CL, he definitely needs a good editing environment (read `Emacs+SLIME').
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-20 16:09 ID:gn3xTLeo
>>5
seconding this, I didnt understand how powerful lisp can be until using SLIME.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-20 20:22 ID:HUQdWzo1
OP here
I have already set up Emacs + SLIME and I'm very impressed already. I've just spent an enjoyable evening with this stuff and at this rate I'll continue until the sun comes up.
Again, very impressed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-20 20:27 ID:M3nyo3AV
I wish I had the time to look at things like this. 48 hours of professional programming per week really takes it out of me when it comes to any recreational coding.
>>17
http server? computer algebra system? you must be joking.
he was asking for software written in lisp that people use, not for software written in lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-21 14:36 ID:VRuXg7u0
*i was asking
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-21 14:40 ID:2VI6u3Lu
How about this:
Remain ignorant and say what you like about lisp, see who listens to you (java, C++ites etc, the brainless), or
Do some exploration, find out some facts and see now who cares what you have to say.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-21 14:47 ID:Bc6ZvR8d
At least Haskell has darcs. Lisp has nothing. NOTHING.
I just downloaded Practical Common Lisp and On Lisp. PCL has some chapter-sized example programs in it. I'm still looking for real examples from Paul Graham.
My first introduction to Lisp was back when XLisp/Winterp came out and my co-worker wrote a Motif GUI database form MUCH faster than anyone could do it in C++. The code was half a page. All our jaws dropped. But we couldn't talk the boss into switching even a little part of the system to Lisp. (I would still have that program if CD's didn't die sitting on the shelf.)
So, to me, it's not a question of whether Lisp is better, faster, and smaller. I know it is. I just need to see more examples from professional, in-the-trenches programmers who really know what they're doing and write practical Lisp apps.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 19:32 ID:voqo3OW/
I've been doing Lisp commercially for about 3 years. Yes, the productivity is phenomenal, but only once you "get it". Even understanding how Lisp works, if you try to write it using the same approaches as Java OO or an imperative style, it'll be just as clunky as your prior language. You need to learn how to think of solutions from a functional approach, and only then does code size plummet while productivity shoots through the roof.
Like >>3 said, it's also not necessarily unique to Lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 20:06 ID:+RvXtB17
>> compared to Ruby or another such language, which frankly make me frighten myself with my own productivity.
>>2 do this in perl and you will have your answer
Fixed. The fact a line of code is short doesn't tell anything about the time it took to write or its readability and maintainability.
That said, I think Python is more productive than Common Lisp, and Common Lisp is far more productive than Java, and Java is sometimes a bit more productive than C.