is there any reason to write programs in lisp

Yes, thanks for asking.

Well it's great for theoretical programming -- actually learning how to tell the computer to your bidding. Hence it is not a tale when people say learning Lisp will make you better program, even if you don't end up doing actual work with Lisp.

There's this talk about "grokking Lisp", which I haven't felt yet. I'm working my way slowly through SICP 'cause I'm catching up on the math as I read, so I'll probably take about a year to do it.

Anyway, people say that Lisp allows you to "become one with the computer", that "programmer and program become one", that "the computer becomes an extension of your mind". There are talks about lisp being the programming language in most harmony with Nature, and that it would be the language God would have used to program the Universe should he have used a programming language. I haven't felt this yet, though.

However most probably you won't find much support except for stuff like Clojure, which is not very liked because it is Java with extra parentheses.

I think Scheme and Common Lisp are your best bets. You'll probably find programming more fun in it because when shit fails it's your own fault because you are the one who implemented the mechanism that failed. You create your own Lisp every time.

I don't see it being used much besides in Emacs and CAD software. I have seen some videos of people programming OpenGL applications with Scheme, though.

Well, I think it's worth it. I didn't feel like Adam on Snakes while programming but I surely find it beautiful to write Lisp software every now and then.

>>62467669
tl;dr

>>62467669
>language of god
>not HolyC

get out of here uncircumcised cia nigger

File: mantus_spider.jpg (31KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x368px

Lisp and Haskell because of how expressive they are with stuff like macros really let you define and think about the problem and language as you see fit. This isn't great for sharing your code with others

No, its only purpose is for teaching compilers because it has easy homomorphic syntax.

>>62468048
Haskell, Control.Functor.Algebra, Data.Functor.Foldable

have fun

>>62468075
Haskell is better at this

>>62468153
>Haskell is better at this
I meant writing compiler for Lisp, not in Lisp.

File: 1469882346326.gif (897KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 800x430px

>>62466018
If you're competent, a lisp will help you get a lot more done, with far more elegance and far less effort than <insert curly-brace language>.
If you're incompetent, a lisp will help you create amazingly incomprehensible and unmaintainable crap that'll make you salty about it for the rest of your life (see examples in this very thread).
There are few valid technical arguments against learning and using a lisp. It's almost always butthurt and subjectivist drivel.

>>62468075
>its only purpose is for teaching compilers
That's interesting. Is there anything you can do in whatever meme language you use that can't be done in a lisp?

>>62467669
>Lisp will make you better program
>I'm working my way slowly through SICP
this fucking nigger shit all this crap for nothing. he's a fraud.

>>62466018

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((maybe))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>lisp uses parentheses
>clisp has a menorah as a logo
Holy fuck another conspiracy uncovered

File: Racket.png (32KB, 513x518px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 513x518px

>>62466018
Your insinuation that lisp is jewish is nothing but your defensive mechanism to cover from the insecurity not knowing lisp makes you feel.

Lisp is a very high level language that has exceptionally performant implementations. Using it well allows you to be a very productive programmer since it has great expressive power. What's not to love?

>>62467832
FACT: If Terry Davis had learned lisp instead of C, he'd still be sane.

>>62468048
Racket has the best macro system of any language yet in existence. Truly a programmable programming language.

>>62468075
Homoiconicity makes it very straight forward to create powerful macro systems, which in turn enables practical language oriented design.

>>62468238
>If you're incompetent, a lisp will help you create amazingly incomprehensible and unmaintainable crap that'll make you salty about it for the rest of your life (see examples in this very thread).
This can be true for more primitive lisps, but with a modern macro system like racket provides it's mostly myth.

Metaprogramming being bad is a myth created by metaprogramming in most traditional languages, such as C's pre-processor, being absolutely horrible. It can be done well. A lot of people have been working on the problem for many years and the tools that have been created are exceptional.

File: toggl-how-to-save-the-princess-in-8-programming-languages.jpg (1MB, 800x2798px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x2798px

>>62466018
i'm new in here...so not sure if it was ever posted before...but anyway..about lisp

>>62469115
That's not a very good meme in any of the examples. I get the feeling this is humor for people who don't program but want to pretend they do.

How to make coincidence detector faster?

>>62469115
>>62469261
at the end it is supposed to be humor, dude :)
i'm sure nobody was trying to pretend anything in here

>>62469007
>This can be true for more primitive lisps, but with a modern macro system like racket provides it's mostly myth.
It's true for Racket just the same. Racket may help you implement your macros properly, but it won't prevent you from properly implementing horrible macros and spamming them all over the place, effectively creating your own poorly thought-out programming language that no one else knows right within the host language. Any decent macro system inherently creates an infinite number of new venues for abuse by "clever" coders.

>Metaprogramming being bad is a myth created by metaprogramming in most traditional languages
Did I say metaprogramming is "bad"?

>>62468875
>exceptionally performant implementations
LOL

>>62470075
Racket macros are hygenic and and provide proper error reporting. They are leaps and bounds beyond macros in other languages. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>62470410
How is macro hygiene relevant? How are "other languages" relevant? Are you capable of actually reading the posts you're responding to, or are you simply here to regurgitate some talking points? If anything, you sound like a mindless paid shill, but who would even pay you to shill for Racket? Guess you're simply suffering from some kind of mental issue.

>>62470456
The point is that to actually construct macros that would fuck you over, you'd need to be experienced in writing macros. Casual beginners won't fuck it up, and those are the programmers that always hang themselves with their own macros.

Is lisp really used in the real world to write productive software? Show me some examples.