> Lisp hackers have been effortlessly reshaping the language for decades using the powerful macro system and extending and bending the language to their will.<p>I've written a bit of Racket code (<a href="https://github.com/evdubs?tab=repositories&q=&type=&language=racket&sort=" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/evdubs?tab=repositories&q=&type=&language...</a>) and I still haven't written a macro. In only one case did I even think a macro would be useful: merging class member definitions to include both the type and the default value on the same line. It's sort of a shame that Racket, a Scheme with a much larger standard library and many great user-contributed libraries, has to deal with the Scheme/Lisp marketing of "you can build low level tools with macros" when it's more likely that Racket developers won't need to write macros since they're already written and part of the standard library.<p>> But the success of Parsec has filled Hackage with hundreds of bespoke DSLs for everything. One for parsing, one for XML, one for generating PDFs. Each is completely different, and each demands its own learning curve. Consider parsing XML, mutating it based on some JSON from a web API, and writing it to a PDF.<p>What a missed opportunity to preach another gospel of Lisp: s-expressions. XML and JSON are forms of data that are likely not native to the programming language you're using (the exception being JSON in JavaScript). What is better than XML or JSON? s-expressions. How do Lisp developers deal with XML and JSON? Convert it to s-expressions. What about defining data? Since you have s-expressions, you aren't limited to XML and JSON and you can instead use sorted maps for your data or use proper dates for your data; you don't need to fit everything into the array, hash, string, and float buckets as you would with JSON.<p>If you've been hearing about Lisp and you get turned off by all of this "you can build a DSL and use better macros" marketing, Racket has been a much more comfortable environment for a developer used to languages with large standard libraries like Java and C#.
> Of course, to be completely fair about my toolkit, standard Scheme can sometimes lack the heavyweight, “batteries-included” ecosystem required for massive enterprise production compared to the JVM.<p>I was thinking the whole time, "this person would _love_ Clojure".
Kawa is a Scheme which runs on the JVM and is pretty great.<p><a href="https://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/index.html</a><p>I am one of these people who cannot countenance a Lisp that doesn't have `syntax-case`.
as a part time schemer, I also love Clojure and reach for it more often than Scheme these days.
I don't believe monads are a "heavy handed abstraction" and that's what prevents people from prototyping in Haskell.<p>What really prevents people from writing in Haskell at a reasonable speed is the poor language design. Programming languages are supposed to aid in reading by emphasizing structure. It's important to emphasize that a particular group of "words" constitutes a function call, or a variable definition, or a type definition -- whatever the language has to offer.<p>Haskell is a word salad. Every line you read, you have to read multiple times, every time trying to guess the structure from the disconnected acronyms. It belongs to the "buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo" gimmick family. This is a huge roadblock on the way to prototyping as well as any other activity that implies the ability to read code quickly. And then it's also spiced by the most bizarre indentation rules invented by men.<p>This is not at all a problem with eg. SML or Erlang, even though they are roughly in the same category of languages.<p>Haskell would've been a much better language if it made its syntax more systematic and disallowed syntactical extensions s.a. introduction of user-invented infix operators, overloading of literals (heaven, why???) and requiring parenthesis around function arguments both for definition and for application. The execution model is great, the typesystem is great... but the surface, the front door to all these nice things the language has is just some amateur level nonsense.<p>* * *<p>As for the upsides of using languages from the Lisp family for practical problems... I don't find (syntax-rules ...) all that exciting. I understand this was an attempt to constrain the freedom given by Common Lisp macros, and I don't think it worked. I think it's clumsy and annoying to deal with. The very first time I tried to use it, I ran into its limitations, and that felt completely unjustified. To prototype, you want freedom of movement, not some pedantry that will stand in your way and demand you work around it somehow.<p>The absolute selling point, however, is SWANK. Instead of editing the source code, you are editing the program itself, that can be interacted with in points of your choosing. I don't know of any modern language that offers this kind of experience. I think, even still in the 80s, this approach to programmers interacting with computers was common. At school, we had terminals with some variety of Basic, and it worked just like that: you type the program and it instantly shows the effect of your changes. Then, there was also Forth, which also worked in a similar way: it felt like you are "talking" to the computer in a very organized and structured way, but real-time.<p>Most mainstream languages today sprouted from the idea of batch jobs, where the programmer isn't at the keyboard when the program runs. They came with the need to anticipate and protect the programmer from every minor mistake they might've easily detected and fixed during an interactive session far, far in advance.<p>Whenever I think about writing in C, or Rust, or Haskell, I imagine being tasked with going to the grocery blindfolded: I'd need to memorize the number of steps, the turns, predict the traffic, have canned strategies for what to do when potatoes go on sale... I deeply regret that programming evolved using this evolution path, and our idea of what it means to program is, mostly, the skill of guessing the impossible to predict future, instead of learning to react to the events as they unfold.
Lol no way, I don't want to deal with opaque macros ever again in a real-world engineering context. I don't want to have to dig through library code to actually figure out what a function does, what the types of its arguments and return values are. nil-punning can go $*&# itself. And etc., the list goes on...<p>Now to be fair, other than some Racket hacking in my spare time, I've only ever used Clojure in a production context, and some Real Lispers™ tell me it's not a real Lisp. Okay. But I've seen all the stuff that people complain about with Lisp while using it, and in every one of the five companies I've used it at, over the course of more than a decade of my career, every Clojure codebase I've inherited (because someone always inherits it, apparently me, after the "artisans" get bored and fuck off to somewhere else to drop their next turd) has been a pile of spaghetti-shaped trash. So, no, if we're actually talking about "software engineering," no, no thank you.<p>I love Haskell myself and the one time I got to use it at a real job it showed its value--it makes maintenance so, so much easier comparatively. Having a sophisticated type system that allows you to encode domain logic and disallows null-as-a-member-of-all-types actually helps a lot when working with a team of developers, go figure. If it were down to just Haskell and some Lisp, I'd choose Haskell every time. But I'm not about to launch into a defense of Haskell; it also has its own challenges and problems when used on a real software team and I can't really recommend it in isolation.<p>But I do want static typing on a software team. Honestly, I hate them both but for real work on a team I'd take Java or Go over any Lisp at this point (especially Clojure).
> <i>Actually, in my opinion, Scheme (and Lisp) allows you to express complex systems and problem domains in more simple terms than any other language can.</i><p>Short article. Worth reading. But all I swallowed was this one sentence.<p>Its the sytax. If you like semicolons, thats why you like Pascal-like languages.
If you know lisp, just reach for Coalton instead of Haskell
I tried some ML language once, it's difficult even to write a basic factorial example,
which in Scheme I could do it iteratively and recursively with ease.<p>Either with S9 Scheme for quick fun (it has Unix sockets and ncurses :D ) or Chicken Scheme for completeneless (R5RS/R7RS-small + modules), I always have fun with both.<p>Oh, and well, Forth, too, but more like a puzzle (altough it shines to teach you that you can do a lot with a fixed point). Hint: write helpers for rationals -a/b where a is an integer and b a non-zero integer- and complex numbers by placing two items in the stack for each case (for rat helpers you need four (a/b [+-*/] c/d) .<p>You can have a look at qcomplex.tcl (either online or installed) as an example on how can it work even under JimTCL itself by just sourcing that file. Magic, complex numbers under jimsh thanks to the algebraic properties. So, you can implement the same for yourself in some Forths, even under EForth for Muxleq. Useless? It depends, under an ESP32 it can be damn fast, faster than Micropython.
I don't see how:<p>Racket:<p><pre><code> > (define (fact n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(* n (fact (- n 1)))))
> (fact 6)
720
</code></pre>
OCaml:<p><pre><code> # let rec fact = function
| 1 -> 1
| n when n > 1 -> n * (fact (n - 1))
in fact 6;;
- : int = 720</code></pre>
Even as simple as<p><pre><code> fac 1 = 1
fac n = n * (fac (n - 1))
</code></pre>
which is a working Haskell implementation?<p>I mean, in Scheme it is <i>longer</i> to write. I enjoy Lisps and use Emacs for everything, but Haskell can be as terse, or even more terse. (Which is not always a good thing.)
I learned Scheme before Haskell and as much as I enjoyed the experience, I still wouldn't reach for Haskell first. It's pretty much limited to my xmonad configuration.
[flagged]