Lisp for enterprise computing? - lisp

On 2008-03-21 14:14:58 -0400, Mikael Jansson <mikael.jansson@gmail.com> said:

> C++ and bash gets my bills
> paid; does that mean I have a lower level of intelligence?

All along we've been talking about *average* java programmers, not
programming wizards who happen to be working a java gig to pay the
bills. Clearly there are able programmers - presumably like yourself,
since you read c.l.l and are clearly interested in things beyond what
pays your check - who know other languages but need to work in more
mainstream languages because that's where the most lucrative job
opportunities are.

However, whatever language is hiring the most programmers will of
numerical necessity draw a larger proportion of mere warm bodies -
people who are less able, less curious, less intelligent, and just
there for the paycheck. This numbers game also drives the lower
requirements of the language used - when management decides they want a
large number of easily replaceable, mediocre programmers rather than a
small number of hard to find excellent ones, management must select a
language that is easier for easily replaceable, mediocre programmers to
learn effectively.

On 2008-03-21 21:15:10 -0400, Damien Kick <dkixk@earthlink.net> said:

> Well, I don't think that any one language can lay claim to any of these
> traits. In fact, there are probably quite a few people running around
> using abstract concepts who've never written a program in any language.

No doubt, but we were talking about programmers, not the general population.

The point is very simple - java may have little used, recent bolt-ons
to provide some of the things built in to common lisp, but the average
java programmer doesn't use them or know much about them. The same is
not true of their lisp equivalents - you have to know the lisp
equivalents or you can't really be said to be a lisp programmer:

you cannot be said to be a lisp programmer if you don't understand
macros; you can be said to be a java programmer if you don't understand
macros; you cannot be said to be a lisp programmer if you don't
understand closures; you can be said to be a java programmer is you
don't understand closures; etc.

On 22 Mar, 18:23, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@pas-d'espam-s'il-
vous-plait-mac.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> However, whatever language is hiring the most programmers will of
> numerical necessity draw a larger proportion of mere warm bodies -
> people who are less able, less curious, less intelligent, and just
> there for the paycheck. This numbers game also drives the lower
> requirements of the language used - when management decides they want a
> large number of easily replaceable, mediocre programmers rather than a
> small number of hard to find excellent ones, management must select a
> language that is easier for easily replaceable, mediocre programmers to
> learn effectively.

(Just so you know, I was playing the devil's advocate just to see what
you'd answer. You did, excellent explanation -- I'll borrow it in the
future! )

It's a sad state where people don't care about what they do. Or is it?
Perhaps, it is only programmers (and a few other professions) that
are--or can be--passionate about their work. I've never had a second
thought about what to work with (or hobby, for that matter...), so
it's hard for me to imagine.

--
Mikael Jansson
http://mikael.jansson.be

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:48:35 +0000, Slark wrote:

> Actually, don't most programmers know about memoization? You see it in
> lots of code (including java...) - of course the autohors may not know
> the technique has a name, but that's largely irrelevant (until you come
> to try communicate with others!)

Indeed. Most of computing uses the term "caching" in this context.
Admittedly not quite the same animal, but in the same genus.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Campo wrote:
> It's not politically correct to say this but I will say it: CL is for
> smart people. Most programmers are too stupid to program in Lisp. If
> your IQ is not several deviations above the norm you should stick to
> Java or Python.

Really? That's me told, then.



-dan

On Mar 21, 11:29 am, Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
> > Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> >> On 2008-03-20 16:54:42 -0400, Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> said:

[...]

> If you follow that recipe, newbies will be productive in 2-3 months.
>
> I don't have hard empirical data for that, but it worked pretty well in
> a few cases I have observed, and what I hear is that this is the same
> experience for other people (for example, ITA).
>
> My conclusion is that Common Lisp is pretty simple to learn, at least
> the stuff you need in 80% of the cases, or so.


Having worked for a very large Lisp-project, the overall experience
was that newbies were productive in a few weeks. OK, their code was
perhaps not what an experienced Lisper would write, but it was
accepted for production use, where it ran for years.




> I don't know how Java currently fares in that regard.

Or any other language, for that matter.

Ernst

On Mar 21, 6:55 pm, Sohail Somani <soh...@taggedtype.net> wrote:

> ** By the way, before anyone thinks I am not for IQ because I got a low
> score, this is not true. On two different WAIS tests some time apart I
> got more than 130. But being me, I know this is obviously not a good
> gauge! I'm sure you will agree ;-)
>
I took a test in a pop sci magazine and only got 127. Aww, does this
mean I can't argue with you anymore?

--
Mikael Jansson
http://mikael.jansson.be

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:40:48 -0700, Mikael Jansson wrote:

> On Mar 21, 6:55 pm, Sohail Somani <soh...@taggedtype.net> wrote:
>
>> ** By the way, before anyone thinks I am not for IQ because I got a low
>> score, this is not true. On two different WAIS tests some time apart I
>> got more than 130. But being me, I know this is obviously not a good
>> gauge! I'm sure you will agree ;-)
>>
> I took a test in a pop sci magazine and only got 127. Aww, does this
> mean I can't argue with you anymore?

Like I said, not a good guage!

--
Sohail Somani
http://uint32t.blogspot.com

Pascal Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> Stefan Arentz <stefan.arentz@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>> Is that really true? 70% of java project FAIL? link?
>>
>> I think it is more like 70% of ALL software projects beyond a specific
>> size fail. Including those in Common Lisp :-)
>
> Indeed. But since Common Lisp code is at least 10 times more compact
> than other languages, there are very few CL programs that go beyond
> that specific size. That's why in CL the percentage of successful
> software projects is higher.

Unfortunately they can stil be counted on one hand :-)

S.