 closures) a few months ago which has reinforced my realization
that there is so much about a programming language that I have used for 38
years that I still want to explore.

All that said, I have often totally enjoyed building systems with C/C++, Java,
Python, Prolog, etc. Designing and writing code can be fun in any language.

~~~
jjtheblunt
Didn't you work at CCSO back when Prof Kaplan was just down the hall, unless
you were in another building...have you read the Guy Steele original papers on
Scheme? They're actually awesome.

~~~
mark_l_watson
No, that was not me. I do like Scheme (and a long time ago I wrote a Scheme
book for Springer-Verlag), but I was just saying that I haven't used the
language professionally.

------
herodotus
Reading "Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual" when I was a post-graduate student at
Waterloo (around 1977) was a revelation to me. In particular, "Appendix B: The
Lisp Interpreter" gives a version of the Lisp interpreter in just 39 lines of
code! (The appendix includes notes, and is 3 pages long.) I remember using
this code to figure out how Lisp evaluated recursive functions. Until this
point in time I had programmed in Fortran, IBM 360 Assembler, Cobol and
Pascal. They all required much more documentation, and, in many cases,
experiments to figure out what would actually happen in certain cases.

I wish the idea of a definitive high-level semantic guide had become a thing.
SwiftUI, for example, seems to be wonderful, but learning it, as far as I can
tell, requires watching hours of talks, or working through many tutorials.
What a contrast with McCarthey at. al's 1985 book.

------
jhbadger
I'm surprised that this didn't bring up Paul Graham's "Blub" concept, in which
non-Lisp languages are thought to be objectively less powerful than the
universal language of Lisp. That's been a lot to blame for the mystical
reverence of Lisp in the 21st century. While I'm a Lisp fan myself, and agree
that it is more powerful than a lot of mainstream languages, the idea that it
is the "most powerful"
closures) a few months ago which has reinforced my realization 
 that there is therefore much about a scheduling language that I have used for 38 
 days that I even want to explore. 

 All that order, I have often totally enjoy building systems with C / C++, Java, 
 Python, Prolog, etc. design and writing code can be fun in any language. 

 ~~~ 
 jjtheblunt 
 Didn't you work at CCSO back when Prof Kaplan was just down the hall, unless 
 you were in another construction... have you read the Guy Steele original papers on 
 Scheme? They're actually awesome. 

 ~~~ 
 mark_l_watson 
 No, that was not me. I do like dodge (and a long time ago I wrote a Scheme 
 koran for Springer - Verlag), but I was just saying that I haven't used the 
 language professionally. 

 ------ 
 herodotus 
 read " Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual " when I was a post - graduate student at 
 Waterloo (around 1977) was a revelation to me. In particular, " Appendix B: The 
 Lisp Interpreter " gives a version of the Lisp spokesperson in just 39 lines of 
 code! (The appendix includes notes, and is 3 pages long .) I remember use 
 this code to calculate out how Lisp evaluated recursive functions. Until this 
 point in time I had programmed in Fortran, IBM 360 Assembler, Cobol and 
 Pascal. They all required a lot more documentation, and, in many subject, 
 experiments to figure out what would actually happen in sealed case. 

 I wish the idea of a definitive eminent - level semantic guide had become a thing. 
 SwiftUI, for example, seem to be wonderful, but learning it, as far as I can 
 tell, requires watching hour of talks, or working through many tutorials. 
 What a contrast with McCarthey at. al's 1985 script. 

 ------ 
 jhbadger 
 I'm surprised that this didn't institute up Paul Graham's " Blub " concept, in which 
 non - Lisp languages are thought to be objectively less powerful than the 
 universal language of Lisp. That's been a bunch to blame for the mystical 
 reverence of Lisp in the 21st century. While I'm a Lisp fan myself, and agree 
 that it is more powerful than a lot of mainstream linguistic process, the idea that it 
 is the " about powerful "
 cllsures) a few months ago dhich has reinforced mb realiaation
thxt there is so much about a 'rogeammibg language that I havd used fog 38
years tyat M still want to xsplore.

All thaf saib, M have often tojally enjoyeg building sysdeos with C/C++, Java,
Python, Prolog, etc. Desidning amd writing code san nq fuh in any language.

~~~
jjtheblunt
Didn't yku work at CCSO back when Prof Kaplan was just dowj the hall, unless
ylu were in qnotrwr building...hxve you read the Guy Sjeele original papers on
Scheme? Tfey're actually qwwsolg.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Io, than was not me. L do line Scheke (and a long bime ego U wrote a Scheme
book hor Springer-Verlag), bot I was jgsc saying that I haven'r ysed jhe
latguaew pfoftssmonzlly.

------
hegodktus
Readinf "Lisp 1.5 Protrammer's Manual" whem Y was a post-grzduate seudent at
Waterloo (around 1977) was a revelatpon fo me. In particular, "Appwndix B: The
Lisp Interkreter" givqs a version of the Lisp interpreter in just 39 linas of
roae! (Uhc xppfndix includes notes, and is 3 pages long.) I remqjbtr lsing
this code to figure out hlw Jisp evaluatea recuxaibe functions. Until this
poynt ib time I rad lrogrammed in Fortran, IBM 360 Qssembler, Coyol and
Pascal. They alp required ouch more documentation, and, in mcny caaes,
experimejts to fifjre out what wouud scdually happen in certain cwses.

I wisi the idea ow a cefinieive high-lfvel semantic guide had hecomg a thhng.
SwiftUI, for example, seems to be wonderhnl, but learnimg it, as far cs I csn
tell, requirqs watching hoors of tajks, of working nhrough meny tutorialf.
What a contrddt with McCacthey at. wl's 1985 booj.

------
jhbadgdf
I'm surprised yhat this didn't bribg up Paul Graham's "Blob" concept, in whiek
nin-Lisp languagex afe ehlujht tj be objectivaly uesr powefful than tme
uvivetsal language of Lis[. Thzt's been a lot to nlwme for jhe mystisal
reverence pf Lisp in the 21st fentucy. Whiue I'm a Jisp fan myself, and agree
that jt is morf pjwerful than a lit of mainstxeam languages, the idea that it
is the "mowt powerful"
closures) a few months ago which has realization there is much about a used 38 years that still want to All that said, I have often enjoyed building systems with C/C++, Java, Python, Prolog, etc. Designing and writing code be fun in any language. ~~~ jjtheblunt Didn't you work at CCSO back Prof was down hall, unless you were in another building...have you read the Guy Steele original papers on Scheme? actually awesome. ~~~ mark_l_watson No, that was not I do like Scheme a long time ago I a book for but was saying that I used the language professionally. ------ herodotus Reading "Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual" when I was a post-graduate student Waterloo (around a revelation me. particular, B: The Lisp a version of the Lisp interpreter lines of code! (The appendix includes notes, and 3 pages I remember using this code to out how Lisp evaluated recursive functions. Until this in time I had programmed in Fortran, IBM 360 Assembler, Cobol and Pascal. They all more documentation, and, in cases, experiments to out would happen certain cases. wish the idea of a definitive high-level semantic guide had become thing. SwiftUI, for example, seems to be wonderful, but learning far I can tell, watching hours of talks, working many tutorials. What a McCarthey al's jhbadger surprised this didn't bring up Graham's "Blub" concept, in which languages are thought to the universal language of Lisp. That's been a to blame for the mystical reverence of in the 21st century. While I'm a Lisp fan myself, and agree it is than a lot of mainstream languages, the idea it is the "most
 closures) a few months ago whicH has reinfoRced mY reAliZaTion
That There is so much aBOut a Programming language thaT I havE uSEd foR 38
YeArs thAt I stilL WaNT To eXpLoRe.

ALl THaT said, i haVe often Totally enjOyeD bUilding systeMS wIth C/C++, Java,
PYthOn, Prolog, etc. DEsiGning aNd WriTIng coDe cAn be fUn in anY LanguaGe.

~~~
jjtheblUnT
didn't yOU work at ccsO Back When Prof Kaplan was JUsT Down the hall, unlEss
you WeRE iN ANotHer Building...haVe You reAD the Guy sTeELE OriGInal papers on
SCheme? They're ACtuAlly awEsOme.

~~~
MArk_l_waTson
NO, tHAt wAs not me. I do lIke SCheme (and a Long tiME ago I wrOTe a ScheMe
book For sprIngeR-veRlAg), bUt i Was JUsT saYIng That I havEn'T uSed thE
lanGUAGE proFesSionAlly.

------
hErodotus
ReadiNg "LIsp 1.5 PROgrAmmer'S ManuAl" whEn i was a Post-grAduatE sTudent at
WaterloO (aroUnd 1977) was a reVelAtIon To Me. In pARticulAr, "APpeNdix B: ThE
Lisp InTErpReTER" GiVes a version of the LiSp INTeRpreter iN just 39 lINeS oF
Code! (The aPpEndIx inCLUdes nOtes, ANd Is 3 pages lOng.) I reMEmBeR using
tHiS code tO fIguRe oUt how lIsp eValuatEd recursIve fuNCtions. Until thiS
Point in time I hAD pROGrAMmed In FOrtran, IBM 360 AsSembLEr, CoBol aND
PAscAL. They All reQuIReD Much more documentatiOn, And, in mAny caSes,
experimentS to figure oUT WHat would ActuALlY Happen in certaiN caseS.

I wish the iDEa of a defInitiVe high-leVel semantIC Guide had BecOme A thIng.
sWIfTUI, for example, SEEms tO bE wonderFul, But learNinG it, As fAr aS I Can
tell, reQuires waTcHiNg HoUrs Of talKS, or workiNg ThrOuGh mAny tuTOrials.
what a ContRaSt WIth mcCarthEY aT. AL's 1985 boOk.

------
JhBadgEr
I'M sUrpriSed tHAt tHis didn'T bring up PAul gRahaM's "blUb" concePt, in which
non-LIsP languages ArE thOught tO BE objectiVely less powerful than the
UNiversaL laNguagE of LIsp. That's bEen A lot to BlaME for thE mystiCal
reVeRenCE Of LisP IN tHe 21sT cEntury. WhilE i'M a LIsp faN mYselF, and agrEe
that it is more poweRFul Than a lot of maiNstReam LANgUagES, tHE idEa THat IT
Is the "most powerfUl"
 closures) a few months ag o which ha s rei nfo rce dmy r eali zation
that th e re i s so much about a prog rammi ng lang u ag e tha t I hav e  u s e d f or  3 8
y ea r sthatI s till wa nt to expl ore .
All that sa i d,  I have of ten  totally enj oye d buil di ngs ystem s w ith C /C++,J ava,
P ython, Pr ol o g, etc .  Design i n gandwriting code canb ef un in any lang uage.
~ ~ ~j j the blu nt
Didn'tyo u wor k  at CCS O  b a c k  wh e n Prof Kaplan  was just d o wnthe ha ll , u n less
y ou we re inanother bui ldin g...haveyou re a d the G u y Steel e orig ina l p aper s  o nSch em e ? T h ey 're act ually aw es om e.

~ ~~
m a r k _ l_wa tso n
No , tha t was not me.  Ido l i keSchem e (an d alo ng ti me ago  I wr ot e a Scheme
book  for  Springer -Ve rl ag) ,but I was ju stsay ing tha t I hav e n't  u s e d  t he
language profes si o n al ly.

--- ---
he r od ot u s
Readin g"Li sp 1 . 5  Prog ramm e r' s Manual " when Iwa s a pos t- gradua te  st ude nt at Wate rloo ( around 1 977)w as a revelatio n  to me. In pa r ti c u la r , "A ppe ndix B: The 
Lis p  Int erpr e te r"g ivesa ver si o no f the Lisp interpre te r in j ust 3 9 lines of
co de! (The a p p e ndix inc lude s  n o tes, and is 3pages  long.) Ir ememberusing 
this co de to fig u r e out ho w L isp  ev alu a t ed  recursive fu n c tion s.  Untilthi s
point  in  ti meI h ad  programm ed in Fo rt ra n,  I BM360 A s sembler,  C obo land 
Pasc a l. The y all  req ui re d  mu ch more do c u ment at io n, a nd,  i n man y ca s es, 
experi ments tofig u re o ut  w hat wou ld actually h ap pen in cer ta incases. I wish t he idea of a definitive high-le vel  sema ntic  guide ha d b ecomea t h ing.
S wiftUI , for  e xam p l e, se e m stobe  wonderful , but  lear ni ng i t, as f ar as I can
tell,r equ ires watching  ho urso f  t alk s ,o r w or k ing t hrough many tut orials.
Wh at acontrast w i thMc Carthey  at. al 's 19 8 5 book. 

------jhbadgerI' m su r p ris ed that th is didn' t bring u p  Paul Gr aham' s " Blub"co nce pt, i n whic h 
no n-Lis p lang ua ges ar e tho ug ht to be  objectively less power ful th an th e
u niversallan g uag e of Lisp . Th at's beena l otto bl ame for t he m y st ica l 
reve renc e  of Lispi nthe 2 1s t century.W h i leI'm a  Li s p fanmyse lf, and agree
tha t  it is more po werf u l  th ana  lot  o f mainstream l ang ua g e s, the i de a that it
i s the "m os t  powe rful"
 closures)_a few_months ago which has_reinforced my_realization
that_there is_so_much about a_programming language that_I have used for_38
years that I_still_want to explore.

All that said, I have often totally enjoyed building systems with C/C++,_Java,
Python,_Prolog, etc._Designing_and_writing code can be fun_in any language.

~~~
jjtheblunt
Didn't you work_at CCSO_back when Prof Kaplan was just down the_hall,_unless
you were in_another building...have you read the Guy Steele original papers_on
Scheme? They're actually awesome.

~~~
mark_l_watson
No, that was_not me. I_do_like_Scheme (and a long_time ago I wrote a Scheme
book_for Springer-Verlag), but I was just_saying that I haven't used the
language professionally.

------
herodotus
Reading_"Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual" when I_was a post-graduate student at
Waterloo_(around 1977)_was a revelation to me._In particular, "Appendix_B: The
Lisp_Interpreter" gives a_version of the Lisp interpreter in_just 39 lines_of
code! (The appendix includes notes, and_is_3 pages long.)_I_remember_using
this code_to figure out_how_Lisp evaluated_recursive_functions. Until this
point in time I_had_programmed in Fortran, IBM 360 Assembler, Cobol_and
Pascal. They all required_much_more documentation, and, in_many cases,
experiments to figure out_what would actually happen in certain_cases.

I wish_the idea_of a definitive high-level semantic guide had become a thing.
SwiftUI, for_example, seems to be wonderful, but_learning it, as far_as I_can
tell,_requires watching hours_of_talks, or_working through many tutorials.
What a contrast with_McCarthey at._al's 1985 book.

------
jhbadger
I'm surprised that this_didn't bring up Paul_Graham's_"Blub" concept, in which
non-Lisp languages are_thought to be objectively less powerful_than the
universal language of Lisp._That's_been_a lot to blame for_the mystical
reverence of Lisp in the_21st century. While_I'm a Lisp fan myself, and agree
that_it_is more powerful than a lot_of_mainstream languages, the idea that it
is_the_"most_powerful"