The Lisp curse is that the more expressive, powerful Lisp language doesn’t really get popular like the less expressive ones, maybe because of the lack of standardization, maybe because it’s easier to mess up? Maybe because it’s harder to document? We don’t know the validity of the Lisp curse nor the…

I usually find myself cursing (well, I do not curse - but it sounds good in the context of List curse) at either myself or the language when failing to write enough tests. I think that aggressively imposing a test writing discipline would do a lot of good to the future of the ecosystem (and also av…

For the uninitiate, the essay . It would be more funny if it were less true. Usually summarized as: Lisp is so powerful that problems which are technical issues in other programming languages are social issues in Lisp. Good programmers in a language find most concepts elsewhere easy to re-impleme…

When people talk about Lisp being powerful, they usually mean expressive power: using macros, one can write really compact code, and build up friendly surface syntax for whatever extension they desire. Given this outstanding expressive power, it is puzzling why Lisp is not so widespread. The “Lisp …

[image] Tarny_GG_Channie: Maybe they want to optimize something to a ridiculous level. In the past I have said “Good enough for Jazz” here. Which means that you get something good enough for the analysis/simulation you need to run. However I will now make a more apt reply to your point. The…

[image] Tamas_Papp: …there are necessarily corner cases that were not covered in detail, so is something a bug, or not? This resulted in a lot of acerbic 200-response mega-threads on Usenet… Julia seems to be immune to all of these at the moment. Well, not all of them, it would seem. :wink:

[image] Tamas_Papp: But seasoned programmers (including Lispers) know that having great expressive power in a language does not mean that solutions are composable and/or performant. Yes, it is easy to write an OOP extension to scheme, but it will not compete with optimized C++, and not necessari…

Yes, I think we do. We really love multiple dispatch, but invalidations are making Julia difficult to use due to compilation and recompilation. My sense is that we should be more judicious about how we use multiple dispatch and perhaps separate the multiple dispatch out into dedicated packages. For…

This may be a naive question, but isn’t this an example of single dispatch? My impression was that multiple dispatch necessarily involves two or more objects: self, and others. Is the point more about dynamic dispatch in general?

[image] mkitti: I think we do. We really love multiple dispatch, but invalidations are making Julia difficult to use due to compilation and recompilation. I’m not sure, are you answering yes we do to the question do we “suffer from Lisp curse”? Which I think is about code correctness (or too …

[image] jishnub: This may be a naive question, but isn’t this an example of single dispatch? My impression was that multiple dispatch necessarily involves two or more objects: self, and others. Is the point more about dynamic dispatch in general? Sorry, perhaps that was bad example. Yes. The…

Does the Julia community suffer from the “Lisp curse” (whatever it means)?

Community

mkitti October 28, 2023, 3:50pm 14

It really should not take 30 seconds to load package with precompilation, and yet we see instances such as this:

Topic		Replies	Views
What don't you like about Julia for "serious work"? Community	179	25191	April 20, 2024
Addressing skill intersection issue and realizing Julia full potential Community	14	1686	November 7, 2023
Question about Julia's goals Community question	41	3283	October 27, 2023
How did we get here? (Why is Julia such a messy language?) Internals & Design	28	3109	September 2, 2024
Correctness and Multiple Dispatch (Help explain to a julia noob) Community question	13	1163	April 30, 2025

Does the Julia community suffer from the “Lisp curse” (whatever it means)?

Related topics