Re:Viability of Unpopular Programming Languages (2018)
by Scarbutt on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @09:07PM
(#22755258)
Should have phrase that differently. This is a case of "worse is better". I know Clojure well and, IMO, it's the best language in the world for writing application/business logic. Many times, when programming in JS/Python, those just feel stupid to me. But that doesn't stop many programmers from writing impressive stuff and being super productive in JS/Python/Ruby, why? because they are great developers and can apply their knowledge to most languages.
Having said that, and going back to the original point, Clojure struggles and will continue to struggle because it doesn't have any strong hold in any domain, in contrast to JS/Python/Ruby. Each of these have big ecosystems of libraries, documentation, big market share in various domains and big job markets. So yeah, worse its better.
Re:Viability of Unpopular Programming Languages (2018)
by smabie on Thursday April 02, 2020 @03:23AM
(#22756925)
I dunno, I've programmed professionally in both Racket and Common Lisp and would only choose Racket if I was implementing a DSL or something (and I would never choose CL for anything). The heavyweight syntax and dynamic nature are really only worth it in programs that are modifying the AST very frequently. I think a statically type functional language such as OCaml, F#, or Scala are much more suited for general purpose programming. I might be weird, but if I'm dealing with a Lisp codebase that is over, say, 10 kloc, I get a distinct feeling of unease, though this applies to really any dynamic language as well. The productivity and performance benefits of an expressive type system cannot be understated.
Re:Viability of Unpopular Programming Languages (2018)
by kazinator on Thursday April 02, 2020 @11:20AM
(#22759981)
If the only parenthetical language you know is Clojure, and you think that is what Lisp is about, you seriously have the wrong idea. That is the reason why you think that the gap between Lisp and Pyhon/JS/Ruby is so vast. But in fact those are Lisp-inspired languages that take their basic paradigm from Lisp.
Re:Viability of Unpopular Programming Languages (2018)
by anonymoushn on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @10:04PM
(#22755603)
Clojure seems to be a whole-program transformation away from having continuations or tail calls. It is hard to apply such whole-program transformations while using libraries.
The trick with any Lisp is to "get it". Once you do there is no comparison between Lisps and any non-Lisp language.
Let's compare it in some useful way. If I was assembly developer for my entire life, "getting" C++ would be comparable to getting Lisp for any JS/Python/Ruby developer.
From my point of view JS/Python/Ruby is just a reiteration, variation on roughly similar, impaired subset of features that I can roll off in Lisp on my leisure. By definition, any language feature can be written in Lisp (well... more in Common Lisp than in Clojure which is hindered by its integration with Java environment) which is something that is really hard to grasp until you start rolling off your own language for any problem you try to solve (and one reason Lisp programmers are so much hated by other programmers).