I'm really sorry to hear my article has wasted your time. You are right, it was rambling. I'm kind of like that and it just surfaces, no matter how hard I try to behave!
Basically, rthomas6 explained it better. But may you allow me to rephrase myself, as a complement as much as an excuse?
There are 3 points.
The first says that Lisp is simple because once you know how to write function calls in classic language (like C, Java, Javascript...), you have all you need to write Lisp code. And really any Lisp code, not just function calls in Lisp.
The second point was that more classic languages go not just one but many different syntax routes while one is good enough to code.
Concretely, for a whole month I was thinking first as writing Java code and then translating it mentally into Lisp. Until I reached enough confidence to let that go and just code in Lisp. When I did that, everything fell apart. Except for one rule: write chainable action perimeters. It is enough, no matter how astonishing it may seem.
The last point was not much about saying that Lisp is beautiful. If anything, I find it elegant but not quite beautiful. No, the last point was about saying it is enough to look at Lisp for 5 minutes and then you are good to go.
Both ways really.
Use it right away, totally possible. Go away from it, entirely reasonable too. Just know that not much other language can maintain such a degree of decency because they generally claim more of your time right at the beginning while also having the nerve to give less.
In short, I'm saying Lisp is nothing special. In particular, it hasn't the ability to illuminate your own programming practice. I'm just saying that from my own particular experience, it does have illuminated my practice because of the other languages.
Lisp has not made me step forward because of what it is in itself. It made me step forward because every other programming languages I practiced have made me walk backwards.
Basically, rthomas6 explained it better. But may you allow me to rephrase myself, as a complement as much as an excuse?
There are 3 points.
The first says that Lisp is simple because once you know how to write function calls in classic language (like C, Java, Javascript...), you have all you need to write Lisp code. And really any Lisp code, not just function calls in Lisp.
The second point was that more classic languages go not just one but many different syntax routes while one is good enough to code.
Concretely, for a whole month I was thinking first as writing Java code and then translating it mentally into Lisp. Until I reached enough confidence to let that go and just code in Lisp. When I did that, everything fell apart. Except for one rule: write chainable action perimeters. It is enough, no matter how astonishing it may seem.
The last point was not much about saying that Lisp is beautiful. If anything, I find it elegant but not quite beautiful. No, the last point was about saying it is enough to look at Lisp for 5 minutes and then you are good to go.
Both ways really.
Use it right away, totally possible. Go away from it, entirely reasonable too. Just know that not much other language can maintain such a degree of decency because they generally claim more of your time right at the beginning while also having the nerve to give less.
In short, I'm saying Lisp is nothing special. In particular, it hasn't the ability to illuminate your own programming practice. I'm just saying that from my own particular experience, it does have illuminated my practice because of the other languages.
Lisp has not made me step forward because of what it is in itself. It made me step forward because every other programming languages I practiced have made me walk backwards.