
A Survey of Concurrency Constructs - iamelgringo
http://www.slideshare.net/twleung/a-survey-of-concurrency-constructs
======
mahmud
I can't believe it! Mainstream articles are throwing around s-exps like they
were "normal" pseudo-code. Thank you Clojure for making Lisp _acceptable_ :-)

~~~
trezor
In the process making it obfuscated and unreadable to a large audience.

I realize it may be an unpopular opinion around here, but large herds of
programmers around the world does not know Lisp, have no intention in learning
it and see no potential value in doing so either. To them this code is greek
covered in parenthesis.

~~~
plinkplonk
" large herds of programmers around the world does not know Lisp, have no
intention in learning it and see no potential value in doing so either"

Ok. Lots of mords in the world.

"To them this code is greek covered in parenthesis."

Ok, And the problem is?

~~~
trezor
I know lots of great programmers real life. Not a single one of them knows
Lisp. To me Lisp is about obscure as languages gets and the only place I see
it mentioned is here and on proggit every now. COBOL would definitely not be
my language of choice for anything, but at least I can trust that people will
know what I'm talking about if I mention it.

If you want to communicate to an audience, putting spikes on the chairs is in
general a bad idea.

Not trying to put the language down, but I see no compelling reason to learn
it and use it over what I know now. I don't see what it has to offer which
would seemingly would require me to relearn programming from scratch, so I'm
not going to put in the effort.

That is not to say I don't take interest in learning new languages, just that
Lisp is not on the list, and nobody has yet provided me with a good reason why
it should be.

There are lots of great programmers out there, most of them not knowing Lisp.
If you don't want to cater to them, fine, but don't be surprised when you find
yourself lacking an audience.

~~~
plinkplonk
You don't need to know much lisp beyond ( + 2 3) returns 5 to follow the
example on _one_ slide in set of 55 slides(assuming you know someting about
STM). If you don't know that, you wouldn't get much from the slides anyway and
will have to do some reading of your own.

Besides it is a set of _slides_. The actual presentation consists of more than
the slides. If you were there yo could ask the presenter to explain what is
happening.

Anyone who can't do that (or be bothered to take the time to spend 10 minutes
reading a tutorial on any lisp) should either (a) look at the _rest of the
slides_ (all 54 of them) or (b) go do something else.

the slide seems to be partly a survey of concurrency constructs in several
languages. How do you expect the presenter to present examples of concurrent
language code without using code from those languages?

" but I see no compelling reason to learn it and use it over what I know now.
I don't see what it has to offer which would seemingly would require me to
relearn programming from scratch, so I'm not going to put in the effort."

This is your choice. Just don't whine that other people are using languages
_they know_ to show code examples.

"but don't be surprised when you find yourself lacking an audience."

 _you_ (as in someone who was not there for his presentation, reading this on
HN long after the presentation and who "cannot be bothered to learn" lisp ) is
obviously not his audience.

So what?

He made some slides for a presentation and was generous enough to put those
slides on line. . There are no "spikes on seats". You weren't there in the
audience.

That's all.

~~~
trezor
Looking at your comment, I went back and skimmed trough all the slides in
there, and realize I after seeing the comment here on HN that I thought all
the examples would be Lisp-like and skipped the slides before seeing the rest.

You're right. My bad. Sorry. I blame early morning and lack of coffee.

