Re: [dev] lisp

From: Alexander Sedov <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:10:01 +0400

2013/7/2 Craig Brozefsky <>:
> Good morning, some good-natured trollbait to go with my coffee!
> 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.
May I get links to your hard works or at least to your papers, or all
you have is some stuff you failed to sell to Yahoo, like that one guy?
You must be really proud about making new tools for solving new
problems, except it's what programmers do, isn't it?
Also, the tools have really advanced in all that years, check them
out. Nobody is writing in BCML anymore.
There is nothing entertaining in the fact that my excitement over Lisp
concepts one day met my disappointment that it provides no advantage
whatsoever over other modern languages. I do recognize the value of
Lisp in the history of programming languages, it served good, but I'm
afraid this language family is no more. We should call it "ex-Lisp".
> 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^)
What? I didn't bitch about parens. I bitched about getting an element
of vector being a function with a long name, mostly.
It's funny how you Lispers like to think that metaprogramming
in-language is a feature unique to Lisp and not something adopted by,
well, most of languages with level higher than C. Also, it won't save
you from lack of terseness. You cannot get away from Kolmogorov
length, and when you are doing Lisp, you need to count words instead
of characters because (see above).
>> And no libraries.
> Trollolololol.
If your "Trolololol" means "you just cannot google", then links
please. If however it does mean "tr00 programmers don't need
libraries", then I shall agree that Lisp is on par with Forth in that
it allows you to rewrite stuff that had already been written in other,
less ideal, languages, VERY elegantly. But some people need to write
something new, too.

Having reread my answer, I apologize if you find it unusually rude,
but you are pronouncing the same empty words that I heard many times.
> [1]
> --
> Craig Brozefsky <>
> Premature reification is the root of all evil
Thanks for the link, and nice signature.
Received on Tue Jul 02 2013 - 20:10:01 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jul 02 2013 - 20:12:05 CEST