Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcapote | Hacker News Reader

This is spot on:

   5. Lisp is opaque to you

View on HN

I can't learn LISP. I can get reasonable work done in imperative functional/OO languages like Perl, C, Java, etc. and took the time to learn Erlang to get a look at functional programming and I can drop the SQL bomb like nothing else (so I can do declarative too) but every time I've sat down to learn LISP because people say it will make me a better programmer, I've gotten distracted and haven't finished.

I don't think this makes me stupid, or a bad programmer. I think it means I have different tastes and limited time. Learning LISP feels like learning assembly: a great exercise, but there are other things I'm more interested in doing - like building things I enjoy with my limited free time.

That being said, maybe I am stupid, or a bad programmer. I don't think not being into LISP means this is the case. I like building things people use, more than I like writing elegant code for code's sake.

I don't think Lisp being opaque has anything to do with your ability to learn a particular PL such as Common Lisp, Scheme, Arc or Clojure. Rather, opacity is usually a term levied at a syntax, when it makes it hard to understand what the underlying semantics of the program are. Lisp has the least "syntax" of any programming language I know of, so if it's opaque to you (e.g., you can't take a guess at what "(+ 2 3)" means), you probably shouldn't be programming.

I see. Its not literally opaque - I got that far in the book, but I can't follow a real program's execution.

I don't understand the following point you made:

"so if it's opaque to you...,you probably shouldn't be programming"

So your saying that someone should not program if they haven't learned basic lisp ( 5 )?

Or are you suggesting that there should be some time limit... like if you program for X months but don't understand it you are forced to quit.

But.. further... What is the purpose of forcing these people to quit?

And.. What is the purpose of belittling these people?

I'm not talking about learning programming. The reference in the article was to people that already were programmers.

To put it another way: if you call yourself a programmer, and sell your skills as a programmer, but can't mentally decompose "(+ 2 3)" into an AST (basically the first, and easiest, step to understanding), even after Lisp's general syntax is explained to you, then you aren't actually a programmer.

Above, you said whether they could guess it, not whether they could understand it after explained.

"you can't take a guess at what "(+ 2 3)" means"

I can see your meaning if it was explained to someone and they still didn't grok it. But I would still kinda feel like encouraging them.

Nevermind this.. Posted under the wrong thread.

You really ought to look at the SICP videos (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussma...). Hour for hour, it's probably the best introduction to Computer Science you'll ever see, and as as side benefit, you'll learn LISP in the first two hours.

I don't think you're a bad programmer-- but if you're making a distinction between "building things people use" and "writing elegant code", prepare to have your mind blown by SICP.

I used to think the same; couldn't really grasp LISP and had even more serious problems with pure functional languages such as Haskell. But the thing is, you can make up all sorts of excuses for not knowing something, but in the end, it's really just not knowing, no matter how good your excuses are.

Then I've spent some time learning LISP, practising it, trying to implement more and more complex algorithms in it and while I'm still not a pro, I'm starting to grasp the basics. And it made me a better programmer, even though at my daytime job I work as a C#/.NET programmer, the little LISP knowledge I have heavily influenced the quality of my code and I think for the better.

I think LISP, Haskell and 'Learning Lisp' or 'Learning Haskell' is nothing one should take too literal.

I think the point behind such statements is the point, that Lisp and especially Haskell today are very, very advanced languages with very, very advanced and abstract concepts (best example: Monads.). If you 'Learn Haskell', or 'Learn Lisp', the speaker will usually mean: Learn these abstract and advanced concepts. Learn to love homoiconic languages such as Lisp, Factor, and learn to love the mathematic backgrounds in haskell, with its Monads, Types, Monoids and whatsoever. If you have groked those concepts, you will usually make a serious step on the ladder of good programmers.

However, as 'Learning Lisp', or 'Learning Haskell' are just a way to say to learn these very advanced concepts, it can be very possible that one knows these concepts by heart already. So, if you know functional programming, the most interesting part about lisp reduces to macros, pretty much. (I know, I will be bashed, because there will be one or two interesting features I forgot, because I did not venture into the LISP-Land too much, because the madness of interpreters and such was too big for me, but the point still stands.)

Its not opaque to me, i just haven't invested the effort to bother learning it yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com