Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Overcoming addiction to Lisp

by spurperl (Priest)
on Jun 14, 2005 at 17:53 UTC ( #466656=perlmeditation: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hello fellow monks, my name is spurperl and I'm a Lisp addict,

My story may sound familiar to many of you - it's been years that I'm having a love-neglect relationship with Lisp and its brethen. Since I learned Lisp, I'm in awe for its elegancy, how right it feels, and how naturally it lends itself to the solution of tough problems.

But... I'm just failing to find practical applications for it in my work / hacking. Any time I think of writing something, I usually end up with Perl - a language I know much better, am quite productive with, that has tons of libraries and a terrific place to consult gurus (the monastery, of course).

But I keep coming back to Lisp - awing and gasping at its beauty. And keep neglecting it for real projects (its free libraries are lacking, to say the least, and the community is nothing to compare to Perl's).

Lately a decision blooms in my heart - to detach, once and for all. To overcome my addiction to this language. I learned it, coded in it, I understand it. I was enlightened with its spirit, but I want to move on. I want to write code in my precious Perl without feeling guilty for leaving Lisp behind.

I've been reading around, and it seems that some of the most cherished Lisp gurus (like Peter Norvig) feel that Lisp doesn't have that edge over other languages any more. Perl, Python, Ruby have all come very close. In fact, Perl 5 now has almost everything Lisp has (see "Higher order Perl", for example), lacking perhaps only in macros, and execution speed - both not necessary in most cases, and both to be provided by Perl 6.

But I need strength in this journey, I need to develop belief that this detachment is inded possible. How can I do this ?

One idea that sprang to my mind is to break the illusion. Namely, find Lisp code I found elegant, Lispy and beautiful, and rewrite it in Perl, with code having the same elegant traits.

I feel I'm not the only one with these doubts, that many Perl hackers feel that "I like Lisp and always wanted to deepen my knowledge in it, but I just want to get my job done".

Comment on Overcoming addiction to Lisp
Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by Zaxo (Archbishop) on Jun 14, 2005 at 18:16 UTC

    Perl will permit you to use as many parentheses as you need, but to taper off to quite a low dosage as you prepare to re-enter society. Here at perlmonks, we have experimented with bareblock braces as a maintainance substitute for severe parenthesis addiction, but many feel that that is just replacing one problem with another.

    After Compline,
    Zaxo

      I don't intend to be offensive, but your reply is a good demonstration of the main problem that occur in language wars. The problem is - take a small but visual feature of the language, and bash it to death, without knowing the language enough. It's what makes people barf at Lisp's parens, which after some experience actually prove to be quite natural and harmless.

      It's also what makes people laugh at Perl - mainly the syntax, the punctuation and all our beloved $_, $', $$ variables.

      You should just take a look what comp.lang.lisp mostly thinks about Perl. Gosh... such a load of crap, it aches my eyes to read some of those posts. And what do they focus on ? Mostly "ugly syntax", and mostly on Perl as a "imperfect glue". Looks like the people are still in the early 90-s, when Perl wasn't yet used for full-blown applications "on their own".

      So, don't be quick to judge a language by its appearance. I assure you, the parens no more make Lisp bad than Perl's syntax makes Perl bad.

        Oh, but I disagree. Kind of. I see no problem in judging a piece of art by its appearance. And that's pretty much what this aspect of the language wars is focusing on: aesthetics. What looks good, feels right. Even in perl, some people have balked at $', $$, and other such "non-sensical" variable names. Which is why we have the English module. To give these variables actual names.

        "I may be fat, but you're ugly - and I can lose weight!" At least Perl's "ugliness" can be overcome. ;-)

        And some of it is - in perl 6, $_ becomes even more optional than in perl 5. The English module will likely live on. Parens become more optional - but nothing says they can't still be used.

        There are different ways of thinking, and different ways of expressing oneself. And different languages are different ways of expressing oneself - you need to find the language(s) that allow you to express yourself in the most reliable, maintainable, and flexible (to changing requirements) fashion. Sometimes that will be perl. Sometimes that may be lisp. Other times C, C++, C#, .Net, Java, shell scripting, or whatever. Probably not ForTran or COBOL, though.

        Bottom line is that you need to be productive. That is, you need to produce something. To me, it's just like the editor wars. Most of my team has switched to FTE, partly because I'm a member of that project. But I stressed to each person that, at the end of the day, your choice of editor is immaterial, as long as you are productive in it. If you find vi is the most productive editor for you, use it! If it's emacs, fte, nedit, or "cat > foo.C", it doesn't bother me. However, we don't write editors in our group, so don't write your own. Just find one and use it. However, if it's not the same as me, there is some razzing to be taken. :-)

      That's a bit like saying "X assembly language lets you use curly braces as much as you like so you'll have no trouble if you switch from C". It ignores the meaning of the curly braces and the extra levels of abstraction and power that comes with their meaning.

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by artist (Parson) on Jun 14, 2005 at 19:17 UTC
    >>>I like Lisp and always wanted to deepen my knowledge in it, but I just want to get my job done. Discovery of knowledge is done by the people with love of knowledge. Each language brings its philosophy. You just like the philosophy. The objects doesn't matter much. You might have been working in Lisp for long time and you cannot learn anything new quickly. It might take time for you and you like to become the master of the domain rather than jack of all trades.

    Take anything for its applications rather than sheer love for it. Just think, what are the things, that you cannot accomplish because of hanging to lisp and you would have answered yourself for the detachment, if those other things, really have values in your life.

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 14, 2005 at 19:41 UTC
    I'd suggest the methadone approach. Take a look at the Joy language. It's even more elegant than Scheme (some of us don't think lisp is all that elegant). But its also less practical. That's the key. You won't get the rush from creating useful applications with it, but you'll still get a mild buzz from being able to appreciate the simple essence of computation that Joy provides.
Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by Qiang (Friar) on Jun 14, 2005 at 20:23 UTC
    you don't have to really use it in real world when learning another new language. (although that would be really nice and better motivated)

    a lot of languages are similar, but there are something difference from each other. you learn another way of doing things or a better way to do things, and much more, which will benefit you in a long run. such as, I felt i first time get the idea of recursion when i did it in Lisp.

    that's why a lot of people have 'learning another language each year' in their new year resolution.

    not to mention, it's better not to stuck with one language and reluctant to learn new things, for career-wise at least.

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by trammell (Priest) on Jun 14, 2005 at 20:52 UTC
    Lisp & brethren are indeed gorgeous, but for me one Perl feature beats Lisp each time: Huffman coding. When I want to get something done, I just don't have the time or patience for all that typing.
Lynch him!!!
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 14, 2005 at 21:13 UTC
    Hello fellow monks, my name is spurperl and I'm a Lisp addict

    Get him, guys! He's one of them!!!

    :-)

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by snoopy (Deacon) on Jun 15, 2005 at 05:18 UTC
    Cory Spencer has already placed temptation in you path with a port of Common Lisp to Parrot (the perl6 VM).

    Sooner or later, what happens when a solution comes too mind that naturally expresses itself as a few lines of inlined (or worse) Lisp code. Will you be strong enough to resist?

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by johnnywang (Priest) on Jun 15, 2005 at 07:58 UTC
    I don't see why you need to overcome your addiction to Lisp. Since when do we live our lives, professional or personal, purely for utilitarian purposes? Since when are we allowed to love only one language to the exclusion of others?
      I hope you understood my intention correctly...

      I don't intend to "love only one language". I like several languages, each is good for its purpose. I like C++, it has its uses, I like Perl, I like Lisp (though mostly academically).

      What I want to overcome is the constant feeling of "oh, I should write something in Lisp". Because maybe I shouldn't, maybe I'll be able to fill this need with Perl, and leave my liking of Lisp on the inspirational level.

        Or maybe you should use the right tool for the job, no matter what the right tool is. I've never used Lisp, but I'm sure there are some things it can do better than other languages like C++ and Perl, so when those things come up, use Lisp.

            -Bryan

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 15, 2005 at 21:01 UTC
    Hmmm. If you think macros are "not necessary in most cases" I'd suggest that maybe you haven't quite grokked The Lisp Way is thouroughly as you might have. If I may humbly suggest that, before you move on, you owe it to yourself to understand what you're giving up, you might want to check out a book aimed at folks like you (who like Lisp or the idea of Lisp but have had trouble actually putting it to use). It's available online at: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ as well as in treeware from Apress. Yeah, I'm biased--I wrote it. But I'm not just a crazy Lisp zealot--back in the day I used to hack Perl full time and even wrote a couple modules for CPAN (including Class::MethodMaker, since adopted by someone else.) -Peter
      • When I program in C, I laugh at those who foolishly squander CPU cycles with their "high level" language constructs.
      • When I program in Fortran, I scoff at those languages who don't handle arrays and parallelism properly.
      • When I program in Perl, I wonder how all those other languages live without regular expressions and CPAN and DWIM.
      • When I program in Lisp, I dismiss anyone who doesn't think macros are like sliced bread.
      • When I program in Scheme, I sneer at anyone who can't write a compiler for their language of choice.
      • When I program in Haskell, I wonder how anyone could think static typing was anything other than the "Right Thing "
      ...and yet I somehow manage to use each of those languages in one way or another. Go figure.
      Macros can provide cutesy solutions to some problems, and can provide a performance boost if you have an inferior compiler, but I challenge you to give a compelling example of what macros can do, that you couldn't also do (almost as succinctly) with higher order functions in perl. Here's a list of things that I probably won't find compelling...
      1. Yet another implementation of Prolog
      2. functions that don't evaluate their arguments (wrap 'em up in a sub{} closure
      3. ).
      4. a 10% speed boost (Perl's too slow to worry much about speed.
      5. custom made regular expression embedded language (already got it)
        None of these, to me, a new Lisper, are what macros are about. Macros are about being amazingly lazy as a programmer. About finding those patterns of code that you write all the time, and making the system do the work for you in ways that are nearly impossible in other languages. It's not about speed, though certainly macros can be faster, especially if you look at things like the CL regex engine. The point is that I'm lazy, and I don't like typing things, and macros let me say it once, and more succinctly than other things. Lisp isn't the hammer for every problem, nor is Perl, nor is any tool. I don't trust a programmer who things his favorite hammer is the best hammer.

        Whether you can do something with higher order functions or even simpler constructs isn't a great argument against having macros.

        Recently I needed to do something for every string of length N or fewer. So I wrote a function that returned a closure that enumerated all strings until exhausting the string space. But I had to loop over the string space a few times in the program, and it got really cumbersome to write things like this:

        (flet ((next-string (make-string-enumerator <num>))) (loop for str = (next-string) until (null str) do <body>))

        Once I'd written that twice, I realized that I was eventually going to make mistakes writing or rewriting expressions like that, so I wrote a macro that expanded into that expression. Once I had the macro, I could write the following instead of the above:

        (dostrings (str <num>) <body>)

        Now, maybe you're thinking "That's only a two-line savings in any place where you'd need to do what you're doing", but to me the win is that the macro lets me write only the important things (the <body>, the maximum string length <num>), and the macroexpander takes care of the tedious and error-prone code for me. This isn't just saving typing: I don't have to think up a variable name like next-string whenever I need to loop over all strings, and so I never have to track down bugs introduced by changing variable names when refactoring. If I don't use it outside the macro, I don't even need to remember the purpose or interface for make-string-enumerator, either.

        Yeah, I could have written something analogous to the <body> form as a function of the string returned by the enumerator, and written the original loop like this:

        (let ((next-string (make-string-enumerator <num>))) (labels ((looper (body enumerator))) (let ((str (funcall enumerator))) (when str (funcall body str) (looper body enumerator)))))

        But I'm not sure that's easier to understand than either the original loop form or the dostrings macro, and anyhow it's still long enough that I think I'd want something like my dostrings macro to generate it if I had to write something like that more than once.

        Functions (including higher order functions and closures) are one way of factoring code for maintainability; macros are another. They complement each other.

Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by fizbin (Chaplain) on Jun 24, 2005 at 09:10 UTC
    In addition to finding elegant lisp and converting it to another language, one thing you might try to do is to find cool perl code. (I find that perl code can be cool more easily than it can be elegant - certain types of elegance can be cool, I'll admit, but you can very easily have highly unelegant yet cool perl code)

    This means both looking at perl code that does things in cool ways and that does stuff that's just darn cool by itself. Obviously, this standard is going to be a bit of a personal judgement call, but I happen to think that solving this problem is a pretty cool thing to do. Of course, I'm biased since I happen to think that my solution is pretty cool. However, look over other expert-level quizzes in the (now sadly mostly defunct) perl qotw archives. Some of those will almost certainly be cool problems from your point of view.

    And there's always the monastery's own Cool Uses for Perl.

    In short, I think you can overcome your lisp addiction by changing your tastes away from "elegance over all" and to the (perhaps more low-brow) "find cool stuff".

    -- @/=map{[/./g]}qw/.h_nJ Xapou cets krht ele_ r_ra/; map{y/X_/\n /;print}map{pop@$_}@/for@/
Re: Overcoming addiction to Lisp
by Arunbear (Parson) on Jun 24, 2005 at 10:54 UTC
    Put this in your toolbox and be happy.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlmeditation [id://466656]
Approved by ktross
Front-paged by Limbic~Region
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-08-31 08:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (294 votes), past polls