SEMI-HOURLY REMINDER

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. Once you learn Lisp, you will see what is lacking in most other languages.

Unlike most languages today, which are focused on defining specialized data types, Lisp provides a few data types which are general. Instead of defining specific types, you build structures from these types. Thus, rather than offering a way to define a list-of-this type and a list-of-that type, Lisp has one type of lists which can hold any sort of data.

Where other languages allow you to define a function to search a list-of-this, and sometimes a way to define a generic list-search function that you can instantiate for list-of-this, Lisp makes it easy to write a function that will search any list — and provides a range of such functions.

In addition, functions and expressions in Lisp are represented as data in a way that makes it easy to operate on them.

When you start a Lisp system, it enters a read-eval-print loop. Most other languages have nothing comparable to `read', nothing comparable to `eval', and nothing comparable to `print'. What gaping deficiencies!

While I love the power of Lisp, I am not a devotee of functional programming. I see nothing bad about side effects and I do not make efforts to avoid them unless there is a practical reason. There is code that is natural to write in a functional way, and code that is more natural with side effects, and I do not campaign about the question.

Lisp is no harder to understand than other languages. So if you have never learned to program, and you want to start, start with Lisp.

You can learn Scheme (and a lot of deep ideas about programming) from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs by Abelson and Sussman. That book is now free/libre although the printed copies do not say so.

Please don't buy books (or anything) from Amazon!

Attached: holylisp.png (1171x1200, 1.18M)

>Lisp(common)
just stuped
>Scheme
retarded

>Julia
>Racket
>Lisp

>socialist
stopped reading there.

>lisp is good because it has generic data structures
I mean, lisp is good, but that isn't why

Haskell does all of these without resorting to crutches like dynamic typing and meta programming.

If Haskell is so good, why doesn't it have apply?

>Lisp
>Socialist
John McCarthy was a pretty serious paleocon.

Why would-you need it when currying is the default? Multiple argument functions are a gimmick.

the absolute state of haskell denial

Deny what? What can you do with applying multiple arguments simultaneously that you can’t do by applying them one at a time?

>you don't know what it means for a programming language to be powerful and elegant
Who cares, I just make cool shit that works. Programming languages are a means to an end, fuck off with your purist autismo.

I have been using Haskell for awhile now, and this is what I have found wrong with the language:
>horrid macro system
>modules are deficient compared to the module system of OCaml or the package system of Common Lisp
>partial functions pervade the language
>broken records (ugly hacks are needed to get around their deficiencies, leading to overengineered libraries like lens)
>most libraries are in alpha and look like a college student's summer project
>library authors tend to pepper their libraries with ugly, meaningless, custom operators, contributing to the overall ugliness of the ecosystem
>String as [Char]
>easily subverted type system with unsafe functions
>laziness makes it a chore even for experienced programmers to reason about algorithmic complexity
>in 30 years of existence, Haskell has yet to become a proven asset in industry

what are ocaml modules like?

which language would you favour, amongst those that are functional?

>in 30 years of existence, Haskell has yet to become a proven asset in industry
Facebook and Target are happy using it, Bloomberg is doing things also.

(((((((((lisp))))))))))
[spoiler](this post triggers the jewish watchlist without reason)[/spoiler]

Says the one triggered

>all this gay shit instead of Scala

Isnt that the preferred language of the NSA? Or they still use Ada?

LISP IS THE MOST POWERFUL LANGUAGE

in the deepest of basements you could also find COBOL engineers

jidf contacted

Does Scheme have a nice package system? Is anything written in Scheme these days?

>Jabba
no thanks

>library authors tend to pepper their libraries with ugly, meaningless, custom operators, contributing to the overall ugliness of the ecosystem

Typical amateur mistake of jerking off to their egos in code.

Consider Clojure.
The original lisps' coupling to the list as a data type might not have been the best choice for the long run. Doesn't make them bad, but some things about it are not scalable.

Attached: have-seqs.png (728x2184, 516K)

this is one of the best threads on Jow Forums right now

can you use seqs to do everything you could do in other lisps? e.g. apply

Why does Stallman hate Common Lisp? And when will we get a good GUI toolkit for it?

Attached: 1562185343444.png (638x1346, 526K)

He likes any LISP

>>>>>>>>>JULIA