Re: [dev] lisp

From: Craig Brozefsky <>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:26:22 -0500

Good morning, some good-natured trollbait to go with my coffee!

Alexander Sedov <> writes:

> I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
> in Lisp, because it's either painful or results in slowness. Lisp is a
> great language for teaching abstract CS concepts and language designs,
> but that's it.

I've spent about half my professional career (15+ yrs) working on Lisp
products -- Common Lisp, and Clojure specifically. In both
cases, accomplishing what we had to do in the time we had would not have
been possible with the tools available in other languages at the time --
we had to make new tools and take new approaches to solving the
problems. You know, we had to like do programming, motherfucker. [1]

I would suggest the set of possible programs and programmers is much
larger than you perceive it to be.

Or, maybe you're just fanning some flames for entertainment.

You DO realize that it's been passe to bitch about parens for
years. Also, you complain that lack of syntax in a language with first
class functions and macros and damn near unlimited control over phase(s)
of evaluation like Racket makes your work less 'terse' than you want --
well, here's a nickle kid, get yourself a real program that writes
programs that writes programs that writes *your* program. 8^)

> And no libraries.



Craig Brozefsky <>
Premature reification is the root of all evil
Received on Tue Jul 02 2013 - 19:26:22 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jul 02 2013 - 19:36:06 CEST