There, I said it.
It's free online and is going to be published by No Starch eventually. Hope you find it useful!
(there are some formatting errors though, like unresolved org-mode symbols)
I personally find it more enjoyable to use than things like C. Then again, for one historical reason or another, C-type languages won, and nowadays are the easiest path to making software, since you'll inevitably have to interact with an OS, window toolkit, libraries, etc..., that all have a C/C++ interface...
How much did 'they' pay you to say that? :D
But seriously Lisps are by far the most advanced programming languages. They just take a huge amount of effort to learn.
I use CL in my day job and would find it highly painful if I did not have all the editing tools I use. Basic things like auto closing parenthesis; this makes the whole I need to balance my parenthesis issue disappear, coupled with transforming existing symbolic expression.
Just curious, what kind of things do you do with CL at work? I'm always interested in how people use less-common languages :)
It's hard to appreciate the elegance of the language before experiencing years of pain working with others. I have similar feelings about learning Haskell (and not appreciating it) in college.
I took a class centered around SICP my first term in college, and it was an incredibly enlightening experience.
IIRC Richard Stallman also has a story about secretaries at MIT using Lisp for basically the same reason.
The quote your referring to is part of his statement exposing the imbalance of the the educational system within the US in the 80's. Here is the quote which also came from the first announcement to his emacs editor under the tag /Blue Sky/:
When large numbers of nontechnical workers are using a programmable editor, they will he tempted constantly to begin programming in the course of their day-to-day lives. This should contribute greatly to computer literacy, especially because many of the people thus exposed will be secretaries taught by society that they are incapable of doing mathematics, and unable to imagine for a moment that they can learn to program. But that won't stop them from learning it if they don't know that it is programming that they are learning!
I'm a sucker for punishment, so after my first (bad) taste of LISP, I took an AI course that was 100% LISP. My AI teacher studied under McCarthy at Stanford, so I probably can't blame him for anything.
(-> 3 (+ 6) (* 7) (/ 12))
or (just an example, fictional names)
(->> object reflector fields (map :balance) (filter #(> % 1000))
Which reads like (pseudo language)
object.reflector().fields().map(:balance).filter(field -> field > 1000)
I've seen a few old AI books where Lisp code is formatted unreadably. I wonder why.
[1] http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2002/01/cheating-scanda...
Seems like there are counterexamples here: http://www.nyx.net/~gthompso/quine.htm
Furthermore, it's possible to encode another programs' code into a single print statement, thereby writing one piece of code with another. As that's trivial, I suspect he meant something else. What was it? :).
Reasonably simple illustration: in Common Lisp, it is possible to write a function that takes a mathematical expression as an argument and returns another expression, as its derivative.
So basically I can write (pseudo-lisp-ish):
(defun diff (f) ... )
then call it like this:
(diff '(+ (pow x 2) x)
and I'd get the expression
(+ (* 2 x) 1)
as a result. The point is, however, that this expression is Lisp-callable code. If I already have a function p, I can write:
(setq dp (diff p))
and dp is now the function computed by (diff p).
This is not necessarily the most practically-useful example, but I think it's closest to being a strong illustration of the principle. In a nutshell, you can do symbolic manipulation with code from within your code.
Edit: I just read your other post from this thread. It's important to note that this happens at runtime, not at compile time.
This isn't impossible to do in C if you really want, but it wouldn't be portable (the reason for this is left at the user's discretion). Think about how you would do the same in C: write a function that takes a pointer to a function f, and returns a pointer to another function g, so that g is the derivative of f. It's obviously ok to restrict f to common mathematical operators.
I can think about ways of doing it, but it ain't pretty.
See Greenspun's tenth rule of programming.
After all, anything is "possible" with hand-written assembly code, too, but realistically speaking, it's not practical.
My ears perked up at the dual statement that although you can write a Lisp program that writes Lisp programs, nobody does it (um, macros?); and that you can't write a C program that writes a C programs (okay, maybe nobody does this, but you certainly can). I guess he means that C is not "aware" of its own constructs the way that Lisp is.
Also, he said that the algebraic languages were "dying out", but that because of this self-generating ability (which nobody uses), that the future of Lisp was "open".
Huh?
You can't do it in C unless you also implement a compiler or evaluator. And even then generating any sort of reasonably complex C code with C would be highly painful to say the least.
You can possibly nearly get there with C macros but I would argue it's not C writing C there, rather a text preprocessor.
Someone else already did that work. Your C compiler is very likely, in fact, already written in C. We don't expect a C-importable library interface for the C compiler, because none of the traditional old C compilers had one (gcc, MSVC, etc.) But libclang exists, and it's pretty easy to write a C REPL using it. From there, only a few steps to automation.
Also, because Lisp code is data rather than strings (code is represented as linked lists) it's much simpler to manipulate code in Lisp macros.
Also, historical context matters, in the late 50s I believe this was very foreign to how machines were seen and used.
