
Lisp: a cult I almost joined (2005) - gnosis
http://fluff.info/blog/arch/00000127.htm
======
pavelludiq
Lisp(and specifically common lisp) is one of the top languages people who
don't know it like to criticize. That wouldn't be a bad thing if the criticism
was any good. Every time i see a blog post about some "problem" with lisp the
chances that it has something valuable to say are low. And calling a language
community a cult is beyond offensive.

~~~
dexen
I want to both upvote you (`` the chances that it has something valuable to
say are low'') and downvote (``is beyond offensive'') at the same time.

See, his arguments about Lisp community being a cult stand. Yours are purely
emotional.

Now we could agree that there is a very good reason to be cultic about Lisp --
it _is_ the best thing since the sliced bread etc. etc. and people should
_just_ use it -- but that's another matter.

In a way, he pre-empted your reaction with ``If such jokes reliably meet with
stifling social disapproval, it's a cult.'' ;-)

~~~
gnosis
I absolutely love Lisp, but I'm not in the least bit offended at someone
describing some aspects of the culture as cultish.

But the thing is.. the very same thing could be said of most other language
enthusiasts.

Look at all the endless hype from Python and Ruby fans (especially when they
compare their favorite language to Perl).

Or look at some OCaml or Haskell fanboys and their attitude that static typing
is The True Way and only ignorant savages would prefer a dynamically typed
language.

And this doesn't even touch on the vi vs Emacs holy wars.

There's plenty of fanboyishness, exclusivity, and and chastisement of
outsiders in many computer fields. And I dare say it's not really limited to
computers either. I'm not sure if "cultish" is really the most appropriate
term, but I feel no offense at it.

The whole discussion reminds me of these images:

<http://www.deimeke.net/dirk/blog/uploads/G7WyP.gif>

[http://www.rubyinside.com/holiday-fun-how-programming-
langua...](http://www.rubyinside.com/holiday-fun-how-programming-language-
fanboys-see-each-others-languages-2911.html)

~~~
fxj
don't get me wrong, i like lisp a lot. but i think lisp has a bad image
because many lispers (not all) are nitpickers. lisper think they are cool, but
they are not. they don't let anything new in their language. they stick to
s-expressions like they are the holy grail. they stick to the funny function
names as if they were given by god. they are the most conservative language
community (maybe apart from COBOL). look at all the disregard they had for
arc. this could have been a beginning to dust off the fossil language and
remove all the warts. but they did not like it. instead lisp is still the
language that it was 50 years ago. <\rant>

~~~
dexen
_> instead lisp is still the language that it was 50 years ago._

I beg you to differ. The original, McCarthy Lisp was a succinct, powerful,
flexible, dynamic language based on a small set of axioms.

Through times, a lot has been thrown out for sake of performance (which was
understood to require compilation). Um, well, in case of Lisp, it means a lot
of cruft has been _added_ (some say, bolted onto) -- the simplicity etc.etc.
was lost. Those days functions aren't even lists anymore, and scoping is
_lexical_!

With a few notable exceptions. Which are either hold-outs, or back-to-the-
roots/back-to-what-worked-better efforts.

Arc is closer to the original Lisp. Also, is more pleasing to use. Not a
coincidence.

~~~
pavelludiq
People keep saying that but i don't get it. Can you give me an example of the
cruft you are talking about? Its one of those other myths i keep hearing about
our cult.

p.s. Arc is more pleasing to use to you, I would certainly not choose it over
common lisp or clojure, but maybe over scheme.

------
praptak
_"And lisp modules? Well, every part of the code can modify every other part.
You can write a whole new grammar if you're so inclined. None of this helps
with the goal of downloading a random package and easily calling whatever you
want from it with minimal hassle."_

This is bullshit. Python can also modify it's own code at runtime and yet it's
one of the most package-complete languages. But it has a single defining
implementation, so if you write your package, then every Python user will be
able to use it.

Have a look at Clojure and the rate it's gaining new libraries. Lisp features
don't seem to hinder that. A single implementation (and what follows - non-
fragmented community) helps it greatly.

~~~
apl
I suspect you're misunderstanding the logic of his point. He's saying that
fancy feature X (runtime-modifiable everything) doesn't help with necessary
feature Y (simple package management), and _not_ that X prevents Y.

Clojure and certain Scheme implementations prove that X and Y are compatible,
but most CLs have atrocious package management when compared with Python, Ruby
or even Java. Lisp's extreme flexibility doesn't remedy that at all.

~~~
jcromartie
> Lisp's extreme flexibility doesn't remedy that at all.

Why would it? I'm not sure I understand the argument.

And also, just for an example: In my experience, Clojure's package management
beats Rubygems for purposes of a project. You specify your dependencies and
their versions (including the Clojure language itself) and a script updates
them from the whatever repos you specify. It's taken the Ruby ecosystem some
time to come up with RVM and Bundler which accomplish the same things. These
kinds of things (package management) are available for Lisp languages today.

Of course CL only recently got <http://www.quicklisp.org/> which seems to make
some strides in this area.

------
javert
_When I was in Morocco, several different people told me that Neil Armstrong
converted to Islam after seeing the Earth, and that Cat Stevens converted. At
first, this was OK, but soon, after the third person or so mentioned this
pair, I got to wondering, maybe they're the only ones._

Neil Armstrong did not convert to Islam; that's a fabrication.

Cite: Wikipedia makes no mention of this, and Google search reveals many
people claiming it's a commonly-believed fabrication.

~~~
makmanalp
Wow, it's interesting how they haven't given up on Cat Stevens over the years.
I guess they don't realize that the average youth these days doesn't even know
Cat Stevens, let alone give a crap about him.

------
wulczer
Come on, there are lots of self-deprecating Lisp jokes, my favourite being:

An elite hacker broke into a government system and found the code of a secret
NASA project. He tried to download it, but the sysadmins noticed the intrusion
and eventually cut the hacker off. He only managed to get the last 40 kB of
the source file and unfortunately, because the project was written in Lisp, it
contained nothing but closing parens.

~~~
StavrosK
That makes no sense. Who downloads files from the end up?!

~~~
wulczer
Elite hackers from jokes?

~~~
StavrosK
Suspension of disbelief ruined!

------
serichsen
Read the comment by Dan Weinreb. It is much more insightful than the article
itself.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
It's good, but the list of "success stories" that he links is not very
impressive (scheduling software for NASA is by far the coolest stuff). Python
has <http://www.python.org/about/success/>; Ruby has e.g. (early) Twitter and
Metasploit; PHP has e.g. Facebook and a crushing market share; C has a zillion
stories starting with the free Unixes. Yes, these languages have their issues.
No, scheduling software does not beat Unix.

------
edw
The article is based on an entirely false assumption about the nature of lisp
culture:

“So, I can’t find any self-poking jokes about lisp. Self-deprecating Unix
jokes, no problem. Jokes about frigging text editors, hilarious. But lisp has
nothing but theological proselytizing.”

Richard Gabriel’s “The Rise of ‘Worse is Better,’”[1] while written from the
perspective of a lisp lover, informs the “Why is lisp a failure?” question.
Mark Tarver’s “The Bipolar Lisp Programmer”[2] is another essay the ruminates
on the failures of lisp. And of course there’s the recently-posted-on-HN “How
I lost my faith”[3].

I’m struck by how personally lispers take the weaknesses of lisp. In part
because I feel the same way, which isn’t surprising given that I'm a
lisper—bicycles saved my body, Scheme saved my soul—and have a problem with
taking failure very personally.

In conclusion, I don’t think the author knows what he’s talking about.

[1]: <http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html>

[2]: <http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm>

[3]:
[http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a2...](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a289d3f6)

------
digitailor
As a member of this cult with absolutely no sense of humor, I would like to
mention that we drink very delicious Kool-Aid, and we are allowed to wear two
different colors of sneakers. And after the comet we will join as a spaceship
lands, I have been promised a cushy job at our destination. (secret-lisp-cult-
message <COMPILED-LEXICAL-OBJECT PUBLIC-KEY>)

------
decklin
Very strange that he describes the MIT approach as "good" and the New Jersey
approach as "not good enough" -- I have always understood them as "good" and
"good enough". As in: why didn't we succeed? Because good enough was good
enough.

Based on this misconception he draws the conclusion that the Lisp folks think
the C/Unix approach is "evil", which is just silly. Maybe this is why he
thinks it's a cult.

------
its2010already
Surely this proves Lisp is a cult:
<http://pics.livejournal.com/codedot/pic/0002t3b1>

------
dexen
gnosis: could you please break the usual `no editorializing the title' rule
for once?

I believe it's interesting and informative and deserves more than a cursory
pass, but without `Lisp' in the title, it's hard to spot.

~~~
gnosis
I considered adding Lisp in to the title, but wasn't quite sure how to phrase
it.

    
    
      "A Lisp cult I almost joined" ?
      "A cult I almost joined [Lisp]" ?
    

Also, there's something to be said for keeping the title as is, as it's a bit
more mysterious.. and may pique the reader's interest to find out what the
cult is. Putting "Lisp" in the title kind of spoils the surprise.

~~~
Confusion
Lisp: a cult I almost joined (2005)

~~~
gnosis
Alright. I like this phrasing. It is less mysterious.. but at least those
interested in Lisp can find it.

You know, I was just thinking.. this is yet another reason for HN to allow
tags. As with tags the title could remain untouched and we'd still be able to
categorize it as a Lisp-themed article, and even that it came from 2005.

------
brlewis
Uh oh, he's onto us with that part about the desire to make things easy. We'd
better post a bunch more essays about how Lisp is a language for geniuses
only. He hasn't caught on about macros yet, but its only a matter of time
before he starts looking at his own code and thinking beyond the limits of
what functions can do to help you not repeat yourself. And then the jig is up.

