On 3 November 2011 01:02, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
On 02/11/11 1:17 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 31 October 2011 21:31, Andrew Burton<aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk> ?wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liam Proven"<lproven at gmail.com>
Many thanks! Lots of food for further reading there.
May I ask: what do folk think of the quote I've often seen cited:
* Scheme is an exotic sports car. Fast. Manual transmission. No radio.
* Emacs Lisp is a 1984 Subaru GL 4WD: "the car that's always in front of
you."
* Common Lisp is Howl's Moving Castle.
Interesting quote comparing Common Lisp with an anime (Howls Moving
Castle).
The anime is made by one of the legendary studios within the genre
(Studio
Ghibli). So I guess it would be a great complement to the language.
My favourite Subaru is the Imprezza and any sports car has to be driven
in
manual gears to get the most pleasure out of driving it - just don't go
from
5th gear to 1st, whilst at high speed!!!
/Howl's Moving Castle/ is a *novel* by thr late Diana Wynne Jones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl%27s_Moving_Castle
The book was subsequently adapted into a film by Hayao Miyazaki.
The point of the quote is not the film; it's the eponymous object. In
other words, the Scheme is small and fast and elegant but possibly a
bit too much hard work for some people; that Emacs Lisp may not be
pretty but it gets the job done very well; and that Common Lisp is,
especially by comparison to the other two, impossibly large and
complex and baroque and completely and utterly impractical.
I think that is overstating the case.
Again, I don't see the purpose of the metaphor; they only seem to harden
people's uninformed opinions - the kind of lazy short-circuiting ("You
mentioned Lisp, so let's make a parenthesis joke, even though I haven't ever
written any Lisp" / "Omg Haskell, that monad stuff is craziness, I'll
stick
with PHP thanks" / "Oh no, I can't use Scheme for this, it's TOO
SLOW") that
seems to happen far too often in this business already.
I recently began reading Paul Graham's "On Lisp" (a comprehensive and very
approachable manual to Common Lisp macros, with a lot of good general advice
throughout*), and found that the parts of Common Lisp that I expected to
find crufty turn out to be not so bad. I see no reason to write it off as a
baroque monstrosity, yet, and certainly won't do so without taking it for a
good long country drive (as I am now trying to do with Scheme).
--Toby
* - Peter Norvig's Tutorial on Good Lisp Programming Style is also
indispensable for any programmer, not just Lisp programmers.
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1098
Well, this is what I was after. Is it a remotely useful analogy, or is
it ridiculous hyperbole, or is it somewhere in the middle, as in,
there's a grain of truth in there somewhere.
I imagine EMACS Lisp is not much use outside of the context of using
and customising Emacs, for instance - is that fair? I don't use Emacs.
I've learned too many text editors and when I first met Emacs it was
part of an expensive OS of limited application; I mainly worked with
DOS and Macs, on which it was not available.
When I came back to it, 20y later, it was too late. After memorising a
good couple of dozens sets of editor keystrokes and UIs over 25-30y, I
settled on CUA in the early 1990s and I'm not moving again. So until
Emacs not only understands Ctrl-X, C, V, Z and so on - and Alt-F, S
and preferably Alt-T, W too - then no matter how myriad its other
joys, I am not remapping my poor aging brain again at my age.
Is there a kernel of truth in the analagy, IOW?
That Scheme is very nice but not much practical use for getting stuff
done; that CL is top-heavy and overcomplicated; that eLisp is all very
well but only good for one thing, say?
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile:
http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at
gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at
hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508