This was actually the article that finally got me to overcome the inertia and start exploring lisp, as a long-time native Java speaker. I gave up again in a few weeks, but the possibilities excited me, and when I found Clojure I was delighted with the number of things that were better than lisp, as well as the things better than Java.
After just two weeks of working with lisp, when I went to write my next Java app, I was flabbergasted to discover that there is no (map). You might want to show them how simple it becomes to process sequences with map/reduce/etc - that was a huge revelation for me. On Sep 8, 2:59 am, Joop Kiefte <iko...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, this metaphor has been used before. > Checkhttp://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.htmlfor an other version of > your story ;). > > 2010/9/8 alux <alu...@googlemail.com>: > > > > > Hello, > > > I still try to read my way through Paul Grahams "On Lisp", and always > > think how to motivate this stuff to my fellow Java people. How do I > > describe what it is all about in this "Code is Data", and "Macros let > > you grow your own language towards the problem" stuff? > > [Why? Well, maybe I read to much of Paul Grahams texts. So my current > > working hypothesis is that this is the one big strength of Lisp that > > other languages still dont have - so if I want to motivate people to > > learn a Lisp, I have to at least point to it.] > > > Short answer: Difficult. ;-) > > > Especially if I find formulations like > > "You can have the language which suits your program, even if it ends > > up looking quite different from Lisp." > > > Longer Answer: > > > What puzzles me most about this quoted formulation is the words > > "different from Lisp", as I know: All my Java collegues see > > Lisp=Parentheses. So, to them, PGs formulation is even misleading. To > > them it doesn't look quite different at the end. > > > Thus I try to come up with a metaphor, and I want to discuss it here, > > in the hope I don't tell them rubbish at the end. > > > I want to liken XML to Lisp data. Then, with XSLT, some XML structures > > are actually programs. Programs that work on XML data. The Lisp > > parentheses are just like the basic XML syntax - elements, tags, > > attributes. Obviousely Lisp has a much simpler syntax, but its trees > > anyway. So XSLT can be likened to Lisp macros then. > > > And the use of it? Well, I currently want to talk to some people who > > use Maven a lot. So the example I came up with is: > > Think about when you had Ant, some years ago. Ant is just a > > programming language for Java builds. > > After a while you recognise that it'd be better to have something that > > describes the project declaratively, with opinionated defaults. Well, > > after some discussions you define something called pom.xml, that does > > this (congratulation, we just invented Maven). Immediately you see > > that all these Ant build scripts mentioned above could be generated > > from this Maven pom.xml. So you might write XSLT to do so (this of > > course deviates from historical truth). Some step later, you don't > > generate them anymore as files; the only needed file is the pom.xml, > > and the transformations of course. > > > So XML and XSLT are data and code, and they can do something that is > > a) similar to what Lisp macros do, and > > b) this is something my collegues understand. > > > Hopefully. > > > So, coming back to Paul Grahams quote, what the beginners see is: It > > was XML and stays XML. The things "looking quite different" are, in > > this metaphor, the XML schema of the Maven pom.xml versus the XML > > scheme of the Ant files. > > > I hope that they will understand the power; and agree they will never > > try and do this in XSLT. The Lisp syntax is just simple enough to be > > usable for such tasks. > > > So, now you probably understand why I ask this question here, even if > > it is a general Lisp question. This may be the only group where people > > understand Lisp and Macros, XML/XSLT, and Ant, and Maven ;-) > > > Now the question: > > Do you see any problems with this metaphor, is it misleading > > somewhere? > > > Thank you, alux > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Clojure" group. > > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > > your first post. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > -- > Linux-user #496644 (http://counter.li.org) - first touch of linux in 2004 > > Demandoj en aŭ pri Esperanto? Questions about Esperanto? Vragen over > Esperanto? Perguntas sobre o Esperanto? -http://demandoj.tk -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
