TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Rise and Fall of Lisp at the Jet Propulsion Lab.

82 点作者 spydez超过 16 年前

7 条评论

silentbicycle超过 16 年前
So it sounds like the JPL's reason (at least the reason they gave - whether you want to believe it was some anti-Lisp conspiracy or just bad office politics is your own business) was that Lisp was too <i>big</i>. I wonder if Scheme would have been a better fit? (It was certainly around in 1988; SICP was written in 1985.)<p>There's something about Lisp that gives it a reputation as inherently individualist (as opposed to the "workers are expendable cogs" project management model that the linked article associates with Java). Same with Forth. At this point, the Lisp community seems to encourage that idea, but what in the language itself supports this?<p>I hear arguments that it's a harder language, but let's not kid ourselves. I think programming well in, say, C++ or Haskell is much, much harder. (<i>Should</i> a language be hard to use well?) Or: Lisp code is hard to read. Potentially, sure -- the readability of the code is more dependent than most languages on the developers' abilities to name things well. (Same with Forth.) You can write unmaintainable garbage in any language, though - just copy and paste things where they're used instead of naming and referencing them, give variables meaningless names, etc. Just add water and presto, <i>big ball of mud</i>. (<a href="http://www.laputan.org/mud/" rel="nofollow">http://www.laputan.org/mud/</a>) Also, most programmers are probably used to good editors handling paren balancing in any language.<p>Besides being significantly different from the main languages people are exposed to, what? All it takes for a language to be different from e.g. C/Java is to not <i>be</i> C/Java. Is it because you can create your own idioms / extensions to the core language? I also think the syntax is something of a red herring - sure, you may dislike the syntax, but I can think of popular languages that have disastrous syntaxes. (I guess Dylan could be a control group here, but I don't know anybody who has real experience with it, let alone its reputation among management.)<p>No answers, but I'd really like to know. Working on my own language, and all that.<p>Also: I'm most definitely not looking for thinly-veiled bragging about how "not everyone can handle such a superior language" either, because... come on.
评论 #304871 未加载
评论 #304867 未加载
评论 #304920 未加载
评论 #304937 未加载
评论 #304868 未加载
评论 #305079 未加载
jimbokun超过 16 年前
I read this before, but still love this conversation with his Google manager:<p>Me: I'd like to talk to you about something...<p>Him: Let me guess - you want to use Smalltalk.<p>Me: Er, no...<p>Him: Lisp?<p>Me: Right.<p>Him: No way.<p>I just find it an amusing encapsulation of how so many of the high achieving people that Google hires like to program in high productivity languages like Lisp, Smalltalk, Ruby (see Yegge) but Google keeps a tight rein on it by keeping the languages they will deploy on their servers down to 4 or so (Python, C++, Java and Javascript being the 4 I've heard).
评论 #304864 未加载
评论 #304860 未加载
gibsonf1超过 16 年前
Is it just me, or is the idea of using a repl on a computer in space simply fascinating?
评论 #306020 未加载
DaniFong超过 16 年前
<i>In the words of Elton John: It's sad. So sad. It's a sad, sad situation. My best hope at this point is that the dotcom crash will do to Java what AI winter did to Lisp, and we may eventually emerge from "dotcom winter" into a saner world. But I wouldn't bet on it.</i>
ph0rque超过 16 年前
&#62; Copyright (c) 2002<p>So what happened in the ~6 years since then?
评论 #305083 未加载
zandorg超过 16 年前
Lisp at the very least is excellent for initial prototypes.
logjam超过 16 年前
"The situation is particularly ironic because the argument that has been advanced for discarding Lisp in favor of C++ (and now for Java) is that JPL should use "industry best practice." The problem with this argument is twofold: first, we're confusing best practice with standard practice. The two are not the same."<p>To me, this is the crux. We have this ridiculous idea that "industry" drives technological advance.<p>Industry software "engineers" trained up in trade schools or worse, without any awareness that they are reimplementing solutions (poorly) to problems that were solved <i>decades</i> ago...and we get...horrible industrial monstrosities like Java (and Microsoft Windows) roaming the earth, while remote diamonds like Lisp and Scheme shine kindly down.
评论 #304973 未加载
评论 #304922 未加载
评论 #304948 未加载