A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
>programmers.
>
>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
>yourself a better programmer.
The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
What say you?
From: Randy A. Ynchausti
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <#XTmPmmQCHA.1336@cpimsnntpa03>
Thaddeus,
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
[snip]
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
Although I understand your basic premise, I wanted to note that there are
some very important lessons that the programming culture of a particular
language can teach a developer in ways that are much better/faster than in
the culture of another particular language. I have taught several C++
developers to program in Smalltalk. Before they came to Smalltalk they did
not have a very deep understanding of object-oriented programming even
though they claimed to be very experienced OO developers. Each appreciates
that experience and it has help them become better developers much more
quickly than they would have otherwise. Semantically, we might argue
whether the culture is really the language, but the bottom line is that the
Smalltalk language/culture provides most developers with a learning
experience that makes us better developers, if we apply ourselves.
Regards,
Randy
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <kk9d6sn3g8d.fsf@glug.org>
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
there is logos, pathos and ethos. you need to fix your usage of the first and
the last; the middle one it seems you have wrung dry. good luck!
thi
Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> writes:
[...]
> there is logos, pathos and ethos. you need to fix your usage of the
> first and the last; the middle one it seems you have wrung dry. good luck!
Aristotle's logic was impeccable.
He reasoned that the earth was the center of the universe.
He should have invented the telescope before taking up cosmology.
--
Joe Schaefer
From: Erik Naggum
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <3238190451877880@naggum.no>
* Joe Schaefer <··········@sunstarsys.com>
| Aristotle's logic was impeccable.
| He reasoned that the earth was the center of the universe.
A man who is never wrong is never right.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> wrote:
>A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
>quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
>The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
>>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
>>programmers.
>>
>>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
>>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
>>yourself a better programmer.
>
>The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
>it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
>FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
>What say you?
No one language will make you a better programmer. Most important
programming concepts are independent of any particular language, although
some languages make it easier to express many of them.
A good programmer should know the generic concepts; a major part of
learning a new language then becomes understanding how it implements (or
lacks facilities for) those concepts. Knowing a broad spectrum of
languages gives you exposure to the many different ways this is done. If
you know only one language, or language family, then you're likely to have
some tunnel vision, and think of the concepts only in the way that language
does it.
--
Barry Margolin, ······@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
IIRC it is wise to believe in yourself and program in several
languages before making a choice. A single choice of language may not
solve all problems in the best possible way. A procedural language
such as FORTRAN may work well for complex mathematical problems. Goal
oriented languages such as PROLOG for other problemt. Smalltalk has
strengths for rapid application development. The applications and
environments continually change and to avoid being left behind it may
be necessary to continually practise several state of the art
implementations. It is also considered useful to utilise good software
engineering practises in the commercial world.
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
> The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
> >The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
> >programmers.
> >
> >So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
> >it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
> >yourself a better programmer.
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> would write:
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
> The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
>>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
>>programmers.
>>
>>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
>>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
>>yourself a better programmer.
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
Relying on a language to become a better programmer surely seems like
a fallacy. Down that road lies "Visual Basic GUI Wizards," and, in
fact, _not_ becoming a better programmer.
What knowing Lisp, Smalltalk, Perl, FORTRAN, SNOBOL, Icon, and such
provides the "better programmer" is an understanding of a larger set
of programming abstractions that you might never _notice_ if you
restrict yourself to what you'd find in "Learning C++ in 21 Days."
The thing about Lisp, in particular, is that it is mature enough,
malleable enough, and has had concerted attention for long enough,
that it contains a _pile_ of those abstractions. Icon's generators?
See SERIES. OO programming? See CLOS for something more
sophisticated than the folks stuck with emulations of Simula can
imagine.
Lisp won't make you a better programmer. For you to _learn Lisp_
might make you a better programmer, though. Ditto for SNOBOL, Icon,
and Smalltalk. The others are pretty derivative :-).
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@ntlug.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html
Why do we wash bath towels, aren't we clean when we use them?
From: Steven T Abell
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D5897D3.28CDFEB0@brising.com>
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
I haven't done a lot of Lisp,
but enough that I tell people I didn't know what computing was about
until I learned Lisp.
I also often tell people that they won't understand objects
until they learn Smalltalk.
Having seen the output of a great many Java and C++ programmers,
I think this is true in all but a very few cases.
Of course, one must learn the language and its culture
before really understanding what it has to teach,
and some people never get it.
Watching someone write C or Fortran in Lisp or APL is dreadful.
Watching someone write C in Java and call it OO is also dreadful.
There aren't very many things one can do with a computer,
but the different language families manage to do them
in ways that require fundamentally different kinds of thought,
which is an adventure of the first magnitude.
So, yes, learning language X will make you a better programmer,
especially if it is very unlike anything you've learned before
and you actually learn to think in that language's proper mode.
Steve
--
Steven T Abell
Software Developer
http://www.brising.com
In software, nothing is more concrete than a good abstraction.
When I was a pre-teen, some of my friends had computers (TRS-80s,
Commodore 64s, Apple IIe's). I had no idea how to program computers,
but I loved playing Pac-Man and Donkey Kong. I pestered my parents
until they bought me a TRS-80. I went to the library and got some books
on BASIC. I wrote a few games. Now I was a computer programmer!
I stuck with BASIC through high school and part of college. I learned
FORTRAN and 6502 assembly in college. Those were some serious languages
for smart people. Now I was really a computer programmer.
Out of college I got a copy of Borland's Paradox. I learned PAL and
"ObjectPAL." Now I can do database work. I'm really a serious programmer.
I got a job doing Delphi and Powerbuilder. Object Oriented! Big iron
relational databases! Now I'm in the stratosphere of computer
programmers. I couldn't even explain the type of programming I do my
parents or other mere mortals anymore.
I started teaching myself Linux and C. People write entire operating
systems in C! Now I'm a hacker. My fingers know Emacs commands by heart.
I start working for a team at work doing Smalltalk. Pure OO. And I
thought I'd known OO before. Now I can actually explain polymorphism
and sound like I know what I'm talking about. I can code nearly as fast
as I can think. I am a programming guru one with the computer-buddha-mind.
I recently took a class in AI that focused heavily on learning Scheme (a
dialect of Lisp, for the uninitiated). I realized I have no idea how to
program computers whatsoever. So, whatever you do, don't learn Lisp or
any of its dialects. It will make you a *much* poorer programmer ;-)
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
>A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
>quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
>The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
>
>
>>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
>>programmers.
>>
>>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
>>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
>>yourself a better programmer.
>>
>>
>
>The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
>it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
>FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
>What say you?
>
>
From: H. S. Lahman
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <3D593046.30701@verizon.net>
Responding to Olczyk...
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
> The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
>
>>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
>>programmers.
>>
>>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
>>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
>>yourself a better programmer.
>>
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
All languages support some methodological view of software development.
To the extent that a language provides a clear insight into that view,
it will be valuable for learning that view.
Clearly some languages are better than others for providing the same
broad view. Pascal was better than BLISS for procedural programming.
Smalltalk is better than C++ for OO development.
Though languages may facilitate learning the fundamentals of a
particular development approach, those fundamentals are still inherently
abstract and conceptual. They also comprise a complex system that
requires judgment to apply in detail. In addition, all 3GLs make
compromises between their approaches and Turing. So using a language to
learn the fundamentals is going at things the hard way. A language
should be a supplement to teaching rather than the teacher.
*************
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.
H. S. Lahman
···@pathfindersol.com
Pathfinder Solutions -- We Make UML Work
http://www.pathfindersol.com
(888)-OOA-PATH
"H. S. Lahman" <········@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<··············@verizon.net>...
> Though languages may facilitate learning the fundamentals of a
> particular development approach, those fundamentals are still inherently
> abstract and conceptual. They also comprise a complex system that
> requires judgment to apply in detail. In addition, all 3GLs make
> compromises between their approaches and Turing. So using a language to
> learn the fundamentals is going at things the hard way. A language
> should be a supplement to teaching rather than the teacher.
What is a teacher? What is a supplement? When learning algebra or
calculus, do you use pencil and paper? Do those teach? Do they
supplement? Learning is a much too complicated process to be neatly
analyzed into a simple scheme with neat modules named teacher and
supplement. A programming language such as Common Lisp is an
extremely powerful learning tool, which both teaches and supplements,
in addition to whatever teaching and supplementing is done by other
learning tools such as a textbook or a human teacher.
Most programmers are not aware of how much they have actually learned
to reach their level of programming skill. Some people have
programming talent, which consists of subtle knowledge and skills
learned since the person was a small child. People with less
programming talent learned things differently. For them, learning
programming is harder. Most programmers are not aware of how hard it
can be for the average person to learn programming.
Some students adapt to new programming methodologies as if they were
born for them. A good implementation of a good programming language
is often exactly the teacher they need. Others may take longer, but
in many cases learn much better from practice than from formal study.
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
> The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
>
>>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
>>programmers.
>>
>>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
>>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
>>yourself a better programmer.
>
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
Nearly anyone wants to play with the titts he has not played with yet.
If this was same with programming-languages, softwareindustrie would be
much further.
But as with the titts (T), there are some limitations in languages (L), too.
I mean, if you see a tit, that are definetely above your level, you'll
normally don't try to play with it.
And so, if you see a language, that is definetely above you level,
simply don't play with it.
Some people are born for BASIC.
Some for C, C++, LISP, Smalltalk, ...
i'm born for i don't know. looking now for LISP & smalltalk.
i don't find my favorite titts.
and i don't find my favorite language.
but my language i can design.
this keeps me happy.
> Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> > A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> > quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
> >
> > The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
> >
> >
> >>The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
> >>programmers.
> >>
> >>So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
> >>it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
> >>yourself a better programmer.
> >
> >
> > The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> > it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> > FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
> >
> > What say you?
>
>
> Nearly anyone wants to play with the titts he has not played with yet.
>
> If this was same with programming-languages, softwareindustrie would be
> much further.
>
> But as with the titts (T), there are some limitations in languages (L), too.
>
> I mean, if you see a tit, that are definetely above your level, you'll
> normally don't try to play with it.
>
> And so, if you see a language, that is definetely above you level,
> simply don't play with it.
>
> Some people are born for BASIC.
>
> Some for C, C++, LISP, Smalltalk, ...
>
> i'm born for i don't know. looking now for LISP & smalltalk.
>
> i don't find my favorite titts.
>
> and i don't find my favorite language.
>
> but my language i can design.
>
> this keeps me happy.
>
Vegas Oriented Programming
Topmind wrote:
>ilias wrote:
...
>>i'm born for i don't know. looking now for LISP & smalltalk.
>>
>>i don't find my favorite titts.
>>
>>and i don't find my favorite language.
>>
>>but my language i can design.
>>
>>this keeps me happy.
>>
>
>
> Vegas Oriented Programming
>
Vegas.Elvis.Elvis-lives.dreaming.dreamer.
Vegas.quick-mariage.marriage.wife.titts
...
i think i don't get you.
can you explain me what VOP is?
From: Matt Curtin
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <86hehwtbgo.fsf@rowlf.interhack.net>
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> >So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
> >it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
> >yourself a better programmer.
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
No single language is going to make everyone a much better programmer
than he already is. Which langauges you should learn to make you a
better programmer will depend on what you already know. The best
programmer will know languages that deal with many different
programming paradigms, so that he'll have exposure to a wide variety
of approaches. Such a programmer, in real life, when confronted with
a problem, will have more tools available to apply to the solution.
The reason why Lisp is touted as a good language for programmers to
learn to make them better is that many programmers' entire experience
is from the Algol-derived languages using imperative and object-
oriented paradigms. Never having been exposed to such things as
mapping functions, closures, and other goodies found in the languages
traditionally in the functional paradigm, learning languages like
Common Lisp and Scheme will give them important insights.
Will Perl make a C programmer a better programmer? It certainly
could, as it provides some important language features that are
entirely missing in C.
Common Lisp programmers tend to be defensive of their language of
choice because relatively few people really understand the language.
The fact is that Common Lisp is an extremely powerful and expressive
language, more suitable for a large class of problems than many other
languages that would be more commonly used. But no one is in a
position to make that kind of pronouncement without understanding both
Common Lisp and the other languages being considered. More
frequently, Common Lisp programmers are in this position, whereas the
non-Lispers are not. Some go so far as to regurgitate the same kind
of nonsense that they've been told for years ("Lisp is slow", "Lisp is
interpreted", "Lisp doesn't have sophisticated data structures", "Lisp
has arbitrary and confusing syntax"), almost all of which is entirely
false.
After the dust settles, though, it's all the same: people need to make
themselves better programmers, and which tools they use to do that
will depend largely on their own background and which tools will
expose them to new ideas. That even means that Common Lisp
programmers will become better by learning languages such as C and
assembler.
--
Matt Curtin Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
ObPlug: Author, /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)
There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> wrote in message news:<··································@4ax.com>...
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
> The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
> >The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
> >programmers.
> >
> >So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
> >it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
> >yourself a better programmer.
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
> What say you?
There are a lot of ways I could interpret this question.
In what way are you suggesting the Lisp community is relying on Lisp
to make themselves better programmers? Is it the idea that
programming with Lisp is like running with ankle weights - so
difficult that it makes you better? Or is it something else? I don't
know much about Lisp. Suppose it forces you to have comments in your
code. In a very small way, this could make you a better programmer
because it could be teach you good habits.
And in what way do you suggest it will make them worse programmers?
And in what way do you suggest that they should rely on themselves to
become better programmers?
And what role does language exclusivity play?
-Carl
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
>
> A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
>
> The final two paragraphs from my reply were:
>
> >The point is that they relied on Lisp to make them selves better
> >programmers.
> >
> >So too, if you rely on Lisp to make you a better programmer then
> >it will make you a worse programmer. Instead rely on yourself to make
> >yourself a better programmer.
>
> The Lisp community does not want to believe this, but I submit that
> it is basically true for any language be it Lisp,Smalltalk, Perl,
> FORTRAN, SNOBOL, etc.
>
Learning another language that is significantly different from what you know
will give you an understanding that there are other ways of doing things (they
may be better or worse). So if you are say a C programmer - lisp will open your eyes
to things you had never thought of (so will all the other languages you list). If you
are a lisp programmer then learning C would give you new insights.
If you just learn one language then some languages will teach you more than others.
Lisp teaches a lot about some things and C about others. Some languages are definately worse
in this aspect - someone who just knows traditional Basic (I won't comment about VB as I don't know
it well enough) is likely not to have learnt a lot of good programming ideas. Older versions of Fortran
also seemed to encourage bad practices too (I don't know enough to comment on more recent versions).
I don't think there is one language I would say would make you a much better programmer if you just knew
that compared to someone who just knew another.
--
Stephen Baynes CEng MBCS ··············@soton.sc.philips.com
Philips Semiconductors Ltd
Southampton SO15 0DJ +44 (0)23 80316431
United Kingdom My views are my own.
"Stephen Baynes" <··············@soton.sc.philips.com> wrote in message
······················@soton.sc.philips.com...
> Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> >
> > A while ago a person posted to comp.lang.lisp and asked a simple
> > quetion: "Does learning Lisp make you a better programmer?"
> Learning another language that is significantly different from what you
know
> will give you an understanding that there are other ways of doing things
(they
> may be better or worse).
Let me add an example to that:
[Pardon my faulty French since I don't claim it as a native language but it
should
be rather clear anyways]
Nous sommes en Ete = It's summer
It's sure different both ways, but it gives some different viewpoints too.
However, it does show that the language you use sort of defines
what you can express in it ...
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <87bs821ae0.fsf@photino.localnet>
"AG" <···@xtra.co.nz> writes:
> Nous sommes en Ete = It's summer
>
> It's sure different both ways, but it gives some different viewpoints too.
>
> However, it does show that the language you use sort of defines
> what you can express in it ...
And sometimes the language you use lets you define what you can
express in it. :)
--
-> -/ - Rahul Jain - \- <-
-> -\ http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- ············@techie.com /- <-
-> -X "Structure is nothing if it is all you got. Skeletons spook X- <-
-> -/ people if [they] try to walk around on their own. I really \- <-
-> -\ wonder why XML does not." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp /- <-
|--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-|
(c)1996-2002, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
From: JRStern
Subject: Re: Does knowing programming language X make you a better programmer?
Date:
Message-ID: <3d5d4059.13789127@news.verizon.net>
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:34:34 GMT, Thaddeus L Olczyk
<······@interaccess.com> wrote:
>What say you?
Where knowledge is pain, ignorance is bliss.
J.