The curse I speak of is http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm Not that I'm implying Chris is bipolar at all but it's an apt description of the trap many great Lispers fall into.
We started to hit roadblocks with our current paradigms and we happened to get lucky enough to stumble on some ideas that could move us forward. What we're working on now is the foundation necessary to do things we've always wanted to do (and awesomely, far more).
We'll be announcing some cool stuff soon, but the gist is that we have to look at the whole stack to find something better. So that's what we're doing.
Just meant that the dream, or more precisely my dream, of LightTable is delayed/put aside by this new project.
The curse of Lisp, to me, is being pulled into ever deeper more beautiful solutions, which you're definitely flirting with, but it's also just an allegory so I really hope you pull it off!
Any hints? I'm extremely curious!
"I want to look at the brilliant failures. Because brilliance amd failure are so often mixed together and our initial reaction is it shouldn't be. But it happens and it happens a lot... Another feature about this guy is his low threshold of boredom. He'll pick up on a task and work frantically at it, accomplishing wonders in a short time and then get bored and drop it before its properly finished. He'll do nothing but strum his guitar and lie around in bed for several days after. .... Generally he would come alive in the final year project when he could do his own thing and hand in something really really good. Something that would show (shock, horror) originality... The 'vision thing' as George Bush Snr. once described it, is really one of the strengths of the BBM. He can see far; further than in fact his strength allows him to travel. He conceives of brilliant ambitious projects requiring great resources, and he embarks on them only to run out of steam. It's not that he's lazy; its just that his resources are insufficient."
This essay, "The Bipolar Lisp Programmer", does a good job of describing Chris Granger and his experience with LightTable, which is exactly the point that mtrimpe was making. There is nothing unfair about the comparison, it is exact.
Achieving your vision is a long, arduous, and mostly thankless process. And frankly, being in the limelight can make it much harder because people are impatient and constantly judging you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+curse+of+lisp&oq=the+cur...
There has been much debate about why Lisp has not taken over the world of computing. It was invented in 1958, it was taught in all the best schools, yet it has not gained mass traction. Paul Graham has touched on this issue in one of his essays:
"So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make fun of Eric Raymond here. On the whole, his advice is good. What he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom. But there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom: Lisp will make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it. Why not? Programming languages are just tools, after all. If Lisp really does yield better programs, you should use it. And if it doesn't, then who needs it?"
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
This issue has been discussed and debated for decades. Your statement "it is not limited to Lisp" is simply ignorant. There is something special about Lisp: no other language has received so much praise and so little use. Essays like the Bipolar Lisp Programmer are important contributions toward understanding what the problem is. And when a real-world example appears, it is utterly stupid to ignore the fact that what you are looking at is a real-world example. Your comment "worse (not everything we wanted) is better (but still better than what's out there)" is a non-sequitur, since the quality of Chris Granger's work was never questioned.
If you actually look through the Google results, there are not that many 'essays' about that topic.
> There has been much debate about why Lisp has not taken over the world of computing. It was invented in 1958, it was taught in all the best schools, yet it has not gained mass traction.
This fate is shared by a lot of things.
The whole idea that Lisp needs or will get 'mass traction' is just complete bullshit. There is no reason for that expectation.
> Your statement "it is not limited to Lisp" is simply ignorant.
No, it isn't. The whole idea is just unscientific bullshit.
> There is something special about Lisp: no other language has received so much praise and so little use.
So, what. Lisp exists since 1958. During the last 50+ years people have written a lot about Lisp. That's it. There are now many times more articles published in the past year about Java and its ecosystem than over Lisp during its whole lifetime.
> Essays like the Bipolar Lisp Programmer are important contributions toward understanding what the problem is.
Tarver has very little idea what he is talking about. He lives in his own world. Everybody at an university has seen similar behavior in different contexts. But I would not call it 'bipolar', because this is just a bullshit label, failing to describe anything credible.
Lisp got used in a lot of innovative projects often in a R&D and University context. As a rapid prototyping tool, as a research vehicle, ... That their 'products' are not polished and tend to fail, is just normal. Innovation fails a lot. Also Lisp was often a prototyping tool. Prototypes tend to be reworked into products using a different technology. Just like somebody makes a prototype using a high-end CNC machine and later uses different production technologies for mass production. It also attracts people, who are innovative. It's just like startups, which fail a lot.
That's just it. Move on nothing to see.
There are plenty of languages that have received lots of praise but little use. Erm, Haskell anyone? And you really have to clarify what "use" means, because Lisp is definitely used. Again, I see no relevance.
My comment on "worse is better", it is also Lisp oriented (well, more specifically CLOS). You should look it up.
Interestingly, the "other big Lisp advocate" just happens to also advance the idea that programming against constraints is good for the same reason you mention, except that he used examples of famous composers rather than painters since he's a musician himself[1].
[1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Perfor...