Recursion is the ability to talk to oneself.

Lisp is a mental attitude rather than a programming language. It uses a certain process of the mind expressed spontaneously through keyboard. I'm concerned with retaining that process.

LISP is an open-ended programming language for open minds.

Anyone can learn Lisp in a few minutes, but nobody could master lisping in a thousand years.

It bugs me when people try to analyze Lisp as a mathematical theorem. It's not. It's feeling.

Lisp, for me, has always been a place where anything is possible--a refuge, a magical world where anyone can go, where all kinds of people can come together, and anything can happen. We are limited only by our imagination.

I hate static languages. I have to change language to my own way of doing it. That's all I know.

One thing I like about Lisp, kid, is that I don't know what's going to happen next. Do you?

The whole thing of programming LISP is not to control it but to be swept away by it. If you're swept away by it you can't wait to do it again and the same magical moments always come.

My own feelings about the direction in which LISP should go are that there should be much less stress on static exhibitionism and much more on dynamic content, on what might be termed humanity in programming and the freedom to express all that you want.

Not to deny that it is a thinking people's programming language, but when I'm lisping if I ever catch myself thinking, I'm in trouble--I know something is wrong.

Lispness is not a state of mind, It's a fact of life!

Surrender your whole being to LISP, and gravity disappears...with few macros, one could write code as deep as the ocean.

Macros are to Lisp what yeast is to bread--without it, it's flat.

Recursion is the ability to talk to oneself.

Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.

Lisp is your own experience, your thoughts, your wisdom. If you don't live it, it won't come out of your REPL.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to decide where LISP starts or where it ends, or even where the borderline lies between between programming in general and LISP. I feel there is no boundary line.

LISP is what we need when other languages fail us, but we cannot remain silent.

Enjoy your lack of proper syntax, faggot.

>>2
Enjoy your lack of mental flexibility, faggot.

ITT: OP quotes laughably delusional posts made by Lisp fanatics over the years on /prog/.
I seriously couldn't stop laughing. This is the kind of thing that you hear religious fanatics say about their chosen faith.

>>1
but can you write lisp code with the standard editor?

>>4 got it write
LISP is just a tool like C .
But why should I respect your beliefs if you don't respect mine?!

>>6
but can you call a toll the standard editor?

According to OP, Lisp is a mental attitude, but not a state of mind.

>>8
Lispness is not a state of mind

>>2
Surely you don't actually think overcomplicated syntax is a good thing.

>>10
overcomplicated syntax
Like Perl, Perl 6, Haskell, APL, Sepples.

>>11
>APL
Actually, APL has pretty simple syntax. Cryptic one-letter function names - that is what makes it awful.

lisp is so gay.

>>1
You're somewhat right in that code flows much more easily in Lisp than when coding in other languages and maps much more closely to my mental processes when programming, however I do wonder if that's true for everyone - most people seem to get stuck on trivial stuff and decide to hate on it.

>>14
You only think it flows closely to your mental process because you've adapted your mental process to flow like Lisp.
Yeeesh, silly Lisper. That much is obvious and can be done for pretty much any language.

>>15
Yes, you do that for all languages, but some languages require all kinds of other chores to go along, such chores tend to be much smaller in Lisps, thus I spend most of the time writing what I want, instead of writing repetitive crap.

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN CLOSED AND REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING:

    Subject: /prog/ Christmas Holiday Challenge.
    Name:
    Email:
    Message: Implement ed(1) in your favourite Lisp/Scheme dialect.

>>17
(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(2)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(3)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((n))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[()()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[()()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[()()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((x))x()))))(([]((()))))[()()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[()()])))())):(()j{}[]))()))))))(((z))x()))))(([]((()))))[(y)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[()()])))())):(()a{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(1)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))(((Y))x()))))(([]((()))))[(5)()])))())):(()A{}[]))()))))))
MOST BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE IN EXISTANCE AMMIRITE?

>>18
I think you forgot to close one of your parenthesis.
Oh shi.....

>>18
I think you forgot to close one of your parenthesis.
Hoshii.....

If recursion is the ability to talk to oneself, then what would you call the ability to talk with oneself?

>>21
feedback loop

>>21
Schizophrenia.

>>23
see >>23

>>23
YOU BROKE MY ABILITY TO TALK WITH MYSELF.

>>21
Active consciousness

>>1
You seem as if you have just watched Tron :D

>>21-22
Which reminds me... how is inner thought (auditory) any different from imagination in general... it's the same feedback loop, just in different areas of the brain and of different scales.

)))))))))))))))))))))
end; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;}
end; ; ; ; ; ; ;}
end; ; ; ; ;}
end; ; ;}
end;}
}

Recursion is where you can talk to separate instances of yourself, telling shorter-lived selves what to do and reporting back to your superior selves. ;}

;}

:{

>;)

MIDGET FAECES
;------------------}

>>17
(define (x) (read) (display "?\n") (x))
(x)

my first lisp.txt

>>35

(define ed
  (λ ((in (current-input-port)))
    (let loop ((x (read in)))
      (unless (eof-object? x)
        (displayln #\?)
        (loop (read in))))))

>>36
or:

#lang racket
(define ed
  (λ ((in (current-input-port))
      (out (current-output-port))
      (err (current-error-port)))
    (parameterize ((current-input-port in)
                   (current-output-port out)
                   (current-error-port err))
      (let loop ((x (read)))
        (unless (eof-object? x)
          (eprintf "?~n")
          (loop (read)))))))

>>36,37
Don't you find it harder to read when you use λ instead of lambda?

>>38
lambda instead of lambda

>>39
I meant the symbol instead of typing ``lambda''.

>>38
A proper editor(fuck off, edfag) editor would display "lambda" as λ.

>>41
A proper keyboard layout would allow you to input λ as λ.

--
Sincerely,
xkbcomp meme fan

>>38,40

I have λ mapped to Altgr+l.
And I find it easier to read: λ is shorter than lambda, so it's like writing (define fun (args)), and the (define (fun args) syntax is pig disgusting.

>>43
*)

(define (fun args) (is-syntax (disgusting pig)))

κ^{μ + ν} = κ^μ·κ^ν.