Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Lisp is Not an Acceptable Lisp (2006) (steve-yegge.blogspot.com)
9 points by capableweb on June 21, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 4 comments



The more I read, the more I think this is why Rich Hickey created Clojure. This describes a pessimistic view of the landscape shortly before Hickey created the language. It provides a good insight into all the problems in Lisp at the time. Clojure answers a lot of these problems.


Steve Yegge (author of submission) regarding Clojure (2012):

> For a few years I had been really excited to start learning Clojure, and my initial experiences with it were quite positive. However, I eventually learned that the Clojure community is extremely conservative. That is is pretty unusual for a Lisp dialect. Lisp is widely regarded as one of the most liberal language families in existence. And Clojure has the superficial appearance of being a laissez-faire kind of language. It is quite expressive, including a -- ahem -- liberal dose of new syntax. And it eschews static type annotations and strong type modeling in favor of a small set of highly regular, composable data types and operations -- not unlike, say, Scheme or Python. But the resemblance to a liberal language ends there. Clojure's community came pre-populated with highly conservative programmers from the pure-functional world: basically Haskell/ML types (lots of puns today!) who happen to recognize the benefits of Lisp's tree syntax. So under its expressive covers, everything about Clojure is strongly conservative, with a core overriding bias towards protecting programmers from mistakes.

From old (2013) HN comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6865464


Yegge, seemingly not knowing too much about the actual Lisp with some strange opinions about it (like that when there is a language spec, everything needs to be in there. He also thinks that macros have no tools?). He wanted a different language. Another Lisp influenced language, but different -> see his first point of too many variants.

There are lots of Lisp influenced languages. Pick on. Clojure is one. Maybe create a new one.


I like Clojure, but I don't understand how Clojure answers the article. The primary complaint in the article was "there are too many versions of Lisp". Whether or not that's a valid argument (it reminds me of the similar "there are too many Linux distros"), surely Clojure adds to the number of options.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: