MADE IN LISP

I've never come across software written in LISP.
Someone give me some examples

>I hate people who aren't sellouts like me because I'm insanely jelly of how much fun they're having

>>27
Yahoo stores

Oh wait it was rewritten in C++ by 30 developers without as many features as the Lisp version which took 2 guys a year and a half while they were also running a business by themselves.

EMACS

the user-facing parts of GNOME

uh

um

yeah

>>29

Yeah, as someone who has actually made it through books on Lisp, I love to bash useless, uneducated Lisp faggots (mostly college Freshmen) at every possible turn, but Yahoo's decision to rewrite all of their crap in dogshit C++ is one of the worst business moves I've ever heard of. I don't understand how it was not cheaper to just teach everyone Lisp.

Although, the only opinion I ever hear on how awful the rewrite was is Paul Graham's, who isn't exactly unbiased. So, it could have been that performance or something was the issue, and incessantly-blubbering Paul wouldn't admit it.

Also, watching Mr. East Coast Yuppie himself get upset in this discussion is hilarious: http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg02367.html

My favorite excerpt:

why not just take Common Lisp and *fix* it!
Do you have any idea how long the future is?  Do you really
think people in 1000 years want to be constrained by hacks
that got put into the foundations of Common Lisp because
a lot of code at Symbolics depended on it in 1988?

Ahaha, typical Lisp religious bullshit. How lame. It's especially funny that he says this, since a lot of the cruft in Common Lisp is due to the language trying to support a bunch of really lame Lisp dialects that were used by a total of 12 people in a graduate program somewhere.

Everyone doesn't use Lisp because they're stupid, eh? Hey Paul, what about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Idiot.

>>31

Aaand, the parser for this thing is retarded, as usual. Should be

Do you have any idea how long the future is?  Do you really think people in 1000 years want to be constrained by hacks that got put into the foundations of Common Lisp because a lot of code at Symbolics depended on it in 1988?

^{:GJS1M 67dcbdbce4a0b67c4b48e86a6ae29205a95e4b83024a9d947213d1231800e8d9
:48 63117b11b027f92bb7674042f3c20832
:1294720492 1309391214}
>>24
<-- check my doubles

Gimp is scripted with Scheme...

>>34
Oh, you mean that bloated piece of shit that comes with Ubuntu that makes it way too complicated to crop a picture?

I didn't know that was written in Scheme.

>>35
Gimp is scripted in Scheme, it is written in C. Also, the word bloated gets thrown around without any real qualification as to what it could possibly mean.

Maxima is written entirely in Lisp, and most of what is interesting in Emacs is written in EmacsLisp or some other dialect. Also, Guile Scheme is the ``official'' (not that it matter much) scripting language of the the GNU project, and you see it used in GNOME's games, Lilypond, Gimp and maybe some other odd programs.

Oh, and AutoCad uses some sort of Lisp for its scripting too, and who knows what else. ITA software was mainly a Lisp shop, but now it was bought by Google, though it's doubtful that they'll rewrite their flagship products very soon just to fit into their language schemes.

Our hypothetical Lisp programmer wouldn't use either [Cobol or assembly]. Of course he wouldn't program in machine language. That's what compilers are for. And as for Cobol, he doesn't know how anyone can get anything done with it. It doesn't even have x (Lisp feature of your choice).

As long as our hypothetical Lisp programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Lisp are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Lisp programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Lisp, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Lisp is good enough for him, because he thinks in Lisp.

When we switch to the point of view of a programmer using any of the languages higher up the power continuum, however, we find that he in turn looks down upon Lisp. How can you get anything done in Lisp? It doesn't even have y.

By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one. (This is probably what Bjarne meant about C++ making you a better programmer.) You can't trust the opinions of the others, because of the Lisp paradox: they're satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs."

>>37

Maxima is written entirely in Lisp

Maxima has broke every single time I've tried to use it. I mean that literally. It just freaks out and throws me back to the REPL at some point or another, and this is several different versions over a span of a few years (I wasn't even doing anything complicated...just partial differentiation and plots of functions of several variables). Axiom looks interesting, especially because it's been in development for-fucking-ever, and they've cataloged their source code/documentation in these hilarious 1,000 page PDF's. Wait, no.

and most of what is interesting in Emacs is written in EmacsLisp or some other dialect.

Emacs Lisp is about as engaging as petrified horse shit (no lexical scoping, LOL!) and Emacs is a bloated mess (I use it because everything else sucks more; that doesn't make it good).

Also, Guile Scheme is the ``official'' (not that it matter much) scripting language of the the GNU project, and you see it used in GNOME's games, Lilypond, Gimp and maybe some other odd programs.

I hate Scheme. Scheme is ALGOL with parentheses. If you're going to brag about using Lisp, man the fuck up and use CL (although Scheme being a Lisp-1 makes is marginally less braindamaged).  Guile is a slow, crippled mess. For the record, GIMP uses an interpreter called TinyScheme, which is also shit. Have you ever seen the Script-Fu scripts? Horrible.

Oh, and AutoCad uses some sort of Lisp for its scripting too, and who knows what else.

The AutoCAD Lisp dialect thing is hilariously awful.

ITA software was mainly a Lisp shop, but now it was bought by Google, though it's doubtful that they'll rewrite their flagship products very soon just to fit into their language schemes.

This was a decent example, but according to you Lisp is going to be phased out here.

...

Wave that Lisp banner high, kiddies!

>>36
You know what it means.