Menu
"The most powerful programming language is Lisp. If you don't know Lisp (or its variant, Scheme), you don't know what it means for a programming language to be powerful and elegant." You would have thought that rms would have made more of an effort to build a great Lisp on which to build better free software.
In 2021, this is an argument both for and against Lisp: Lisp implementations are sufficiently fast, so Lisp is best. Modern languages are powerful, so they are best.
Lisp makes it remarkably easy to extend the language into just what you want it to be...which means that Lisp programmers tend to spend most of their time extending the language into just what they want it to be rather than solving the problem. (Indeed, this is often touted as one of the benefits of Lisp...
Lisp is good because it has a very minimal, simple, regular syntax.
Lisp is bad because it has a very minimal, simple, regular syntax.
“Lisp is a programmable programming language.”
— John Foderaro, CACM, September 1991
Here’s my view:
On the surface, Lisp is a nice, simple functional programming language. There’s almost no syntax, and all the pieces fit together in logical ways.
If you dig a little deeper, read SICP, and write a metacircular evaluator, you discover two things: One, the whole interpreter (given just a few primitives) is just barely a page of code, and two, the relationship between code and data allows for elegant programming techniques.
Once you’ve fully absorbed this, it feels like other languages are set in stone when they only allow you to say a few things. Lisp can build any abstraction at all if you can define syntax and semantics for it.
Lisp is the Chuck Norris of programming languages.
Lisp is the bar other languages are measured against.
Knowing Lisp demonstrates developer enlightenment.
I've heard of 3 weaknesses (and their counter-arguments):
Dynamic typing.
There's an argument for statically typed languages out there revolving around giving the compiler enough information to catch a certain class of errors so they don't happen at runtime. But you still need to test.
This article argues for dynamic typing along with more testing: Strong Typing vs. Strong Testing.
Hard to pick up.
There are actually two parts to this: learning and tools.
Lisp takes some effort to really "get", but it's worth it, because learning Lisp really will make you a better programmer in other languages. For instance, once you really "get" closures, you'll understand Java's inner classes. And once you "get" first-class functions, you'll be depressed every time you use a language without them.
I've read The Little Schemer and am reading Practical Common Lisp, which are both excellent.
Next are the tools. I'm on a Mac, so I've zeroed in on Aquamacs Emacs (makes Emacs livable for a novice) and Steel Bank Common Lisp (SBCL).
Lack of libraries.
I can't tell for sure yet, but I doubt it. For building web sites it looks like Hunchentoot and Elephant provide a good set of tools. But really I don't see Lispers complaining about the lack of libraries (maybe because Lisp is so powerful they just aren't needed?).
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
Greenspun's Tenth Rule
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With