Lisp. Lisp is the only language

Why there are other programming languages besides Lisp? With Lisp's macro system you can create any language you need ever. Small, big, finely tuned for your task. Supporting other languages means opposing progress and delaying the inevitable future. There should be only one language and myriad languages at the same time. The one language is Lisp.

What bothers me is to not being able to do x = ???;something.set(x);somethingelse.set(x)
That's because you don't understand lambda calculus. How the fuck you can claim any deep understanding of any Lisp then is beyond me. No, I'm lying, I do understand that the utter lack of understanding is quite conductive to claims of greater understanding.

Look, it's simple. When you want to write "x = expr; stuff ..." in an imperative fashion, you can rewrite it as "(lambda x: stuff ... )(expr)", in a pure functional fashion.

Is your mind blown? If it is, then shut the fuck up and reflect on how this shit is pretty obvious to anyone who understands lambda calculus, and how ashamed you should be for not understanding it earlier. A hint: just ashamed enough to never mention this shit unless you are pretty sure that the person doesn't know it.

Hello, #I reader macro, standard even on Lisp Machines!
Yeah, yeah, and there's that scheme proposal #754 or something, which no one uses, ever. Because lispers are insecure dumb fucks who don't understand why exactly they have the power and are afraid to change anything lest they lose it.

VBNET enforces Lisp-style of doing things.
You are missing the point. Code monkeys are OK with VB.NET and are not OK with Lisp. As VB.NET converges on the good parts of Lisp, it's getting harder and harder to convincingly assert that it's the good parts that are the reason for Lisp sliding into oblivion, because code monkey supposedly can't understand them. They can, this is the truth. You have to admit that there are bad parts in Lisp, but you also can't, because yo'ure a fauxing fanatic.

I just said it's braindead. It is.
You don't know anything, Jon Snow.

We're comparing sepples to dead dogs, now.
No, we are comparing undead dogs to something which lives in the minds of the cultists only, by now. It can't eternal lie, it's vanished.

Namely, that the Lisp community consists mostly of mentally retarded people, and that is a push off of a kind.
QED. Oh, wait.
No need to backtrack, acknowledge the truth which you've seen already.

>>161
That's because you don't understand lambda calculus. How the fuck you can claim any deep understanding of any Lisp then is beyond me.
Lisp is not based on lambda calculus.

Look, it's simple. When you want to write "x = expr; stuff ..." in an imperative fashion, you can rewrite it as "(lambda x: stuff ... )(expr)", in a pure functional fashion.

Oh my! You discovered functional programming! Too bad Python is imperative as fuck! Yes, it does have functools, yes, you can do fp with it, yes, it's best practices to separe functional code from imperative one and Yes, GvR hates functional programming, and I'd like to do something similiar to (define (f x) (lambda (y) (begin0 x (set! x (+ x y)))))

Is your mind blown?
Sure (no)
If it is, then shut the fuck up and reflect on how this shit is pretty obvious to anyone who understands lambda calculus
Then let me continue.
Yeah, yeah, and there's that scheme proposal #754 or something, which no one uses, ever. Because lispers are insecure dumb fucks who don't understand why exactly they have the power and are afraid to change anything lest they lose it.
We are happy with parentheses for a reason.
You are missing the point. Code monkeys are OK with VB.NET
Are OK with Java too, what's the point?
and are not OK with Lisp.
How can they be not OK with something they don't even know exists?
You have to admit that there are bad parts in Lisp, but you also can't, because yo'ure a fauxing fanatic.

yo'ure
Maybe you're right, I can't be objective on Lisp because I'm a Lisp elitist faggot who thinks it's the pure perfection and nothing will ever be as powerful. But Doctor Racket (see previous posts) was pretty objective, IMHO.
Try discussing with him, next time, instead of the fauxing fanatic that I am. (I'm serious, talk with him, you need a doctormight enjoy the conversation)
You don't know anything, Jon Snow.
You don't either.
No, we are comparing undead dogs to something which lives in the minds of the cultists only, by now. It can't eternal lie, it's vanished.
Haskell is not undead, it was a medium sized dog.
No need to backtrack, acknowledge the truth which you've seen already.
Then, why don't you let the thread die?

I'd have enjoyed reading this discussion more sans the allusions to retard-spam.

>>162
Spam free thread:
>>1-10,12-33,52-53,55-60,62-63,66-73,75,77-79,81,83,86,89-111,113-115,119-125,138,141,144,153,155,157-162

>>164
*>>163

>>165
**>>1001

>>166
Segmentation fault

Wow, so much trolling in this thread.
As for the question >>1 asked:
Lisp can be made into anything, although if you change it too much, it becomes something too different from Lisp, in which case it will either be a DSL or a completly new language implemented in Lisp.

Other languages exist because people made them. Some of them fit niches which Lisp isn't perfect for (C is good for mid/low-level code, although you can of course do low-level tasks in specific Lisp implementations; assembly is required for low-level parts of OSes, required in compilers, may be useful for squeezing performance out of an algorithm (or implementing something some SIMD-like instruction set), of course, assemblers can be implemented in Lisp and called at runtime (or compile-time) just as well). Others (such as Java, C#, C++) are meant to be easier to move to from those that learned to program in imperative languages like Fortran, C, Algol, Pascal (you can thank the educational systems for this).

Having some variety in programming languages doesn't hurt, although it does mean you'll have to learn new syntaxes and APIs which are very much alike each other (once you're familiar with the major paradigms). As for me, I'll be content using CL, C and my platform's assembly for most tasks, at least until I need to interoperate with code written in other languages, in which case I may write code in other languages - it won't kill me.

bump pants

>>168
>Having some variety in programming languages doesn't hurt
It hurts, because you can only find jobs in C++/Java/C#/PHP/Python, so if all these inferior languages to be exterminated, I could at last find a LISP job and stop being an anti-social revolutionary.

>>170
I could at last find a LISP job and stop being an shut-in neckbeard.

ftfy

Jobs are for faggots, real men code for fun.

s/ an / a /

ftfm

It is like if Hitler exterminated all jews, he could at last become a painter - a job, jews denied him.

>>174
Actually he didn't become a painter because he was supposed to meet with a Jew, who was murdered because of some kids who took Hitler too seriously. A paradox, if you will.

>>175
No. Art College turned off his application, because his drawing style was to empirical and didnt meet abstract jewish tendencies.

>>176
too empirical
self fix

>>144
No they don't.

>>146
lulz fuck you nigger

⁶⁶ Lisp has all the visual appeal of oatmeal with fingernail clippings mixed in ⁹⁹

>>181
Hi, autist. How goes with Lisp? Are you going to put more parentheses?

/prog/ being pissy about syntax different than what they're used to.
Why do you never tire of this? Why?

>>185
I refuse to take the easy way out.

i'm going to start over with SICP
from page 1
what's the LUNIX /prog/RAM i should use again?
_{i forgot}

yes, yes
[o][u][sup]^H[/sup]ugs& repl& _beam[/u][/o] OH MY

>think prog is shit because of robots farming threads and every other thread is trolling/autism
>mfw this thread is informative, complex, and has even been pruned for troll spam
Looks like we got some new janitors.

ITT NIGGERS TOO SICP DIDNT LISP

Lisp is a metalanguage for creating languages, thus the existence of other languages is logic, otherwise, Lisp wouldn't do anything.

>>193
If you're good enough to use lisp, you'll soon be frustrated with lisp. Lisp is not an adequate lisp. By the time my bus had made it two blocks I'd written some simple lisp macros that were so powerful they made lisp completely obsolete and replaced it with a new language. Fortunately, that new language was also called lisp. And i was able to prove, mathematically, that the new lisp i'd created was both far superior to lisp in every conceivable way, but also exactly equivalent to lisp in every possible way. I was very excited by this. But also found it very boring.

>>194
Using only an Emacs and a lisp interpreter, it's impossible to construct friends.

h,,

    * 4)
    * 35: I am going to email this thread to GJS (225)
    * 36: How get better at being a progamer (15)
    * 37: /prog/ whining (38)
    * 38: Bluetooth Auth throught DBUS. (22)
    * 39: ???????????????????????????????????????? (5)
    * 40: TOP 10 BEST THINGS ABOUT /prog/ (20)


New Thread | All Threads

wait for it...

^{:GJS1M 67dcbdbce4a0b67c4b48e86a6ae29205a95e4b83024a9d947213d1231800e8d9
:32 623d9cca27031b709a7ea608f446cff0
:1296487765 1298977326}
>>60
dubz

^{:GJS1M 67dcbdbce4a0b67c4b48e86a6ae29205a95e4b83024a9d947213d1231800e8d9
:32 ba5c351a4ad00f146402ae92b31be411
:1296487765 1298977331}
>>91
dubz