/prog/ - What is your favourite book on Common Lisp?

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-01 23:54

Looking to become better at programming in Lisp. Yes, I've read SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-01 23:55

SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:12

>>1
I'm afraid most lisp books are written by arrogant authors. You can use them for examples of using lisp, but don't expect to learn much from them other than that. I'm afraid lisp satori can only be reached by using lisp, rather than following a book.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:16

>>3
I've been using it a lot, but when I read other people's code, they use more of lisp than me, I seem to just use a small subset. The only thing I've read on lisp was SICP, and then I just jumped straight into programming with common lisp. I think I'm right in thinking common lisp has a lot more in it than scheme, what would be a good book to learn the language?

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:20

>>4
Practical Common Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:21

Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming: Case Studies in Common Lisp

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:23

have you looked into SICP?

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:26

>>4
It's a huge language. It's easy to be productive when you only know a subset of it. If you know scheme and the equivalent sort of code in lisp you are in good shape. Some things to add on would be macros, clos, the standard library, and how the community package system works (I hate it). Then there's things like loop, which I can never remember, and other features that I never use, like conditions.

>>5 is good. It will take you on the tour and you can pick and choose what you want.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:07

>>2
This book is overhyped and useless for non-Scheme programmers. The obscure and non-intuitive syntax(with plenty of parenteheses) of Lisp + heavy abuse of recursion means people learn bad coding habits. If you want to learn practical programming use a book suited to your language of choice, or a language reference/manual.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:22

>>9
0/10.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:27

>>9
Hi! Welcome to /prog/! I can see you are new here. If you don't like Scheme and Lisp and parenthesis and don't understand recursion and TCO, you may want to read SICP. If it's not for you, you might be a better fit back at /r/programming.

Thanks for stopping by!

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:55

>>11
You must be new here, nobody is that retarded.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:00

>>11
Do you have any reading comprehension? It said that SICP is a bad book for learning general programming because of the abuse of recursion and odd syntax. And it is true anyway. K&R would actually do someone who wants to learn general programming a lot more.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:04

>>13
What you mean by general programming is actually a subset of the form shown in SICP. It's both less expressive and harder to optimize in machine code generation. It's only advantage is that it's easier for dimwits to understand.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:53

>>13
C is a terrible language outside of kernel development.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:55

>>15
You're trolling, right?

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 11:35

>>14,15
Both of these posts are written by Jewish faggots.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 12:01

The only correct answer is The common lisp hyperspec.

no "how to program for babbies" shit.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 12:52

Thinking in Practical Common Lisp for Dummies: The Best Parts by Peter Ahmed Graham.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 13:51

>>19
It turns out to be a good idea for a /prog/ collab work.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 14:23

Learn Common Lisp the hard way, by Zed Shaw

What is your favourite book on Common Lisp?

1 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-01 23:54

2 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-01 23:55

3 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:12

4 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:16

5 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:20

6 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:21

7 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:23

8 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 0:26

9 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:07

10 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:22

11 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:27

12 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 1:55

13 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:00

14 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:04

15 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:53

16 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 2:55

17 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 11:35

18 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 12:01

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 12:52

20 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 13:51

21 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-02 14:23