Lisp

The real problem with Lisp is that it was designed without any consideration of the cognitive load experienced by the programmer.  The syntax may be simple, but the semantics are extremely complex and hard to master.  This is completely at odds with needs of the programmer. 

The main cognitive load is in developing a solution to the real world problem.  The programmer is engaged in reflective cognition.  Basic UI principles dictate that, when designing tools to aid in reflective cognition, they must as intellectually shallow as possible.  The less cognition required to operate them, the more is available for completing the required task.

Lisp was unintentionally designed for experiential cognition.  It contains many artifacts, each with a very deep and rich set of semantics.  All cognition must be devoted to its operation.  It is no surprise that it only attracts programmers who are only interested in using it for its own sake.

>>40
No I mean what kinds of practical applications? Could I write an HTTP request handler or something like that?

>>30

Instead of telling me how pathetic I am you could bring up some examples on which languages are slow period.

Who cares? I could sit here and name shitty languages which, while 'theoretically' being able to have a decent implementation, in fact don't: Python (Psyco is shit, and so are all of those other useless little things you can do that make Python 'fast'; the only way to make Python fast most of the time (yes, after you've optimized your algorithms) is to drop down to C and deal with the gross kludge that is the Python API), Ruby ('fast Ruby implementation' is almost an oxymoron at this point, probably because anyone with half a brain would just use Lisp anyway, thus leaving only idiots to work on Ruby), Perl.

But really, who cares? What does it matter? What point is it proving? You all keep reminding me that a faster implementation 'could' exist, but the fact is that it doesn't, and it's years upon years of work to make one that is even remotely decent. SBCL has been around for over 10 years (longer than that if you count all the work that went into it in the form of CMUCL) and it still can be weird when trying to optimize a program.

All of this useless, unproductive pedantry is why I stopped caring about programming the first place. Fuck it.

>>41

(>>42 and all of the other ranting messages here)

In Common Lisp? Sure. Please don't mistake my rantings against CL and everyone else on this board as evidence that CL is entirely useless. To answer your question more specifically,

No I mean what kinds of practical applications? Could I write an HTTP request handler or something like that?

It'd be fairly easy, if you're familiar with basic network programming. Check out http://common-lisp.net/project/usocket/ if you're serious. It's a lot of fun to load up usocket (using something like Quicklisp) in SLIME and just play with the library.

If you were expecting something above socket level, I'm afraid I can't say for sure that there's anything you might be interested in. You could check http://www.cliki.net/networking , however, most of those libraries are probably the usual CL pieces of shit that don't work.

^{:GJS1M 67dcbdbce4a0b67c4b48e86a6ae29205a95e4b83024a9d947213d1231800e8d9
:46 96896158ba24cb43aac2b31d540d9612
:1309311965 1309389464}
>>35
<-- check 'em dubz

>>43
the reason you tend not to see a lot of libraries in CL that aren't really primitive is that making your own layers of abstraction in CL is not hard at all. It's not worth publishing.

>>45
No, it's because it's a toy language used by man-children that don't have any real work to do.

>>45
HA! YOU'VE BEEN PWONED, B[u]^IA_TC^H FEAR THE ANGER OF A EXPERT PROGRAMMER

>>45

You should totally read what I wrote again. I was bitching about all of the shitty libraries people do release and clog up CLiki with.

For the record, I am fully aware that writing complex things in CL is easy. If >>41 got really carried away, he could probably end up writing a full-featured HTTP server in Common Lisp very easily.

It really is the best language when you want to build something complex, but sadly each community is full of a bunch of religious idiots who smother it. We need an updated, cleaner version of CL (a more flexible type system, remove unnecessary cruft from the language that's still hanging around 'just because'), and leave as little flexibility in the standard as possible to encourage only one major implementation. And yes, it would be worth the years of work on a new compiler.

"If someone set off a bomb in this room, it would wipe out half of the worldwide Lisp community. That might not be a bad thing for Lisp, because it would have to be reinvented."

--John McCarthy

>>47
fail