Who are the greatest enemies of the Lisp programming languages?
What organizations do they belong to?
What ideologies or falsehoods do they subscribe to?
What can we do to convince them to follow the right path?
How should we fight them if they refuse to embrace Lisp?
The greatest enemy of the Lisp is Lisp itself.
Corporate keeps pushing blub languages. Their effect is twofold; they take inspiration from Lisp features which is overall good, and they restrict the programmer by limiting their abilities.
Lisp is libertarian, blub is authoritarian.
(kill elites/larpers who write incomprehensible code)
(kill dialects that encourage write-once-read-never-again code)
(kill proprietary hardware that hinder lisp os development)
(run lisp os on bare metal instead of in unix vm)
enemies of lisp
If you are reading this post all summer/sol/stice fags will infiltrate prog within seven days. To undo this curse you need to copy this and paste it in 20 other threads. I'm so, so sorry, please forgive me.
If you are reading this post all summer/sol/stice fags will infiltrate prog within seven days.
That's fine with me.
>>7 That's not fine because...because it just isn't. Okay?!
Lisp is libertarian
https://www.stallman.org/glossary.html#anti
Antisocialists: people who advocate a laissez-faire, laissez-mourir state which refuses to help non-rich people, such as by providing medical care or education, or protect them by regulating how businesses treat them. Antisocialists call such programs "socialism".
Those people secondarily defend human rights, such as freedom of speech, and they like to call themselves "libertarians". However, polling them shows that a laissez-faire, laissez-mourir economy is their highest priority, and human rights come second for them. In effect, they try to use our support for human rights to manipulate us into advocating the laissez-mourir economy, by presenting that as a part of human rights.
Using the term "libertarian" for them emphasizes the secondary aspect of their views and paints them as champions of liberty. I choose to emphasize their primary focus by calling them "antisocialists." Let's all call them that.
The state's mission is enabling everyone to have a just, free and decent life, which includes both social programs and defense of human rights.
The greatest enemy of the Lisp is Lisp itself.
How can that be? It is simply not possible. Lisp is perfect. Some people are just unable to see it, perhaps because of laziness or jealousy. We must try to lead these people back to the right path. We should use a gentle approach before using force.
>>9
Stallman has weird political definitions. I use the term without regards to economic politics, since indeed far-left libertarianism is a real thing.
Who are the greatest enemies of the Lisp programming languages?
<flame>Node.js being optimized enough to outrun handmade lithp code and x100 easier learning curve. Modern JS only disadvantage vs lisp
is not having macros. Perhaps lithpers should develop something fast like Stalin Scheme, port more libraries and use a better syntax? </flame>
But actually, having to use eval and complex recursive stack
juggling isn't going to look good to "enterprise coders"
who run most software industry projects. Its like submitting obfuscated C in hopes it will somehow will pass the reviews.
Most people don't want to untangle recursive codepaths and
macros scare them. Simple, dumb Blub-type languages with
clear syntax and natural pseudo-code flow have already won
the masses over and they will not change suddenly into
some obscure, weird language without a concrete need.
Consider Python: would an average coder with to a Python-syntax
Scheme where invisible parens stack in incomprehensible depths
and indentation layers not seen elsewhere are daily occurrence?
The cognitive load of viewing lisp in any syntax, be it
parens/indentation/semicolons/brackets is very high.
Average program in Blub has brackets equivalent of 3-4 brackets
vs Lisp 20-50 parens per page.
Programming is not intended for the masses.
>>13
What a brilliant idea! It should be illegal to program computers if you do not have a license. In this way, a regulatory authority can ensure that all software meet minimum quality standards.
Even better, we should adopt the medieval guild system. Only licensed professionals who dedicate their life to the craft of programming will be allowed to program. They will then be able to take on apprentices or pass on valuable knowledge to their children. Nothing beats an education environment with a low student to teacher ratio.
To keep the masses away from programming, computer programming books should be confiscated and locked up in a sacred temple where only the high priests and approved programmers will be allowed access to the dangerous material.
The use of computers should be severely restricted. Personal computers will be outlawed. There will only be public coin-operated computers that are owned and maintained by heavily regulated companies. Programming would slowly turn into a religion, with the "programmer class" of individuals gradually rising to the top of the social hierarchy. Lay people would often consult one of their town's few programmers for advice on how to conjure the correct spells to satisfy the spirits inside computers. The devout would make donations to the temple of programmers, in hope that their charitable contributions would be rewarded in the form of well-behaved computer spirits.
Lisp is starting to sound like religion.
It most certainly isn't perfect, or it would be 'the language'.
Lisp is starting to sound like religion.
What else would you expect from God's Programming Language?
It's a shame that there are so many disbelievers, heretics, and schisms.
It most certainly isn't perfect
Heretic!
it would be 'the language'.
It will be 'the language'. Ultimately every act of speech is a program for a (computer-)brain. A program written in some 'natural' language. Those 'natural' languages are more than enough for lay people to express their mundane things but for anything more complicated the Greenspun's tenth rule of programming becomes effective.
Lisp is perfect.
Lisp is perfect and so it can be used as a perfect weapon. Against itself.