Some thoughts about raising the profile of Lisp
I must be mellowing in my old age (possibly as opposed to bellowing) because I have been getting praise and compliments recently on comments in various places.
Don't worry, there are still people angrily shouting at me as well.
This was the earlier comment, I think... There was a slightly forlorn comment in the Reddit Lisp community, talking about this article, which I much enjoyed myself:
Hell Is Other REPLs: Being Mutable and Avoiding Bad Faith ProgrammingSomeone was asking why so few people seemed interested in Lisp.
As an outsider - a writer and researcher delving into the history of OSes and programming languages far more than an actual programmer - my suspicion is that part of the problem is that this positively ancient language has accumulated a collection of powerful but also ancient tooling, and it's profoundly off-putting to young people used to modern tools who approach it.
Let me describe what happened and why it's relevant.
I am not young. I first encountered UNIX in the late 1980s, and UNIX editors at the same time. But I had already gone through multiple OS transitions by then:
[1] weird tiny BASICs and totally proprietary, very limited editors.
[2] early standardised microcomputer OSes, such as CP/M, with more polished and far more powerful tools.
[3] I personally went from that to an Acorn Archimedes: a powerful 32-bit RISC workstation with a totally proprietary OS (although it's still around and it's FOSS now) descended from a line of microcomputers as old as CP/M, meaning no influence from CP/M or the American mainstream of computers. Very weird command lines, very weird filesystems, very weird editors, but all integrated and very powerful and capable.
[4] Then I moved to the same tools I used at work: DOS and Windows, although I ran them under OS/2. I saw the strange UIs of CP/M tools that had come across to the DOS world run up against the new wave of standardisation imposed by (classic) MacOS and early Windows.
This meant: standard layouts for menus, contents of menus, for dialog boxes, for keystrokes as well as mouse actions. UIs got forcibly standardised and late-1980s/early-1990s DOS apps mostly had to conform, or die.
And they did. Even then-modern apps like WordPerfect gained menu bars and changed their weird keystrokes to conform. If their own weird UIs conflicted, then the standards took over. WordPerfect had a very powerful, efficient, UI driven by function keys. But it wasn't compatible with the new standards. It used F3 for help and Escape to repeat a character, command or macro. The new standards said F1 must be help and Esc must be cancel. So WordPerfect complied.
And until the company stumbled, porting to OS/2 and ignoring Windows until it was too late, it worked. WordPerfect remained the dominant industry-standard, even as its UI got modernised. Users adapted.
So why am I talking about this?
Because the world of tools like Emacs never underwent this modernisation.
Like it or not, for 30 years now, there's been a standard language for UIs and so on. Files, windows, the clipboard, cut, copy, paste. Standard menus in standard places and standard commands on them with standard keystrokes.
Vi ignores this. Its fans love its power and efficiency and are willing to learn its weird UI.
Emacs ignores this, for the same reasons. The manual and tutorial talk about "buffers" and "scratchpads" and "Meta keys" and dozens of things that no computer made in 40 years has: a whole different language before the Mac and DOS and Windows transformed the world of computing.
The result of this is that if you read guides and so on about Lisp environments, they don't tell you how to use it with the tools you already know, in terms you're familiar with.
Instead they recommend really weird editors and weird add-ons and tools and options for those editors, all from long before this era of standardization. They don't discuss using Sublime Text or Atom or VS Code: no, it's "well you can use your own editor but we recommend EMACS and SLIME and just learn the weird UI, it's worth it. Trust us."
It's counter-productive and it turns people off.
I propose that a better approach would be to modernize some of the tooling, forcibly make it conform to modern standards. I'm not talking about trivial stuff like CUA-mode, but bigger changes, such as ErgoEmacs. By all means leave the old UI there and make it possible for those who have existing configs to keep it, but update the tools to use standard terminology, use the names printed on actual 21st century keyboards, and editors that work the same way as every single GUI editor out there.
Then once the barrier to entry is lowered a bit, start modernising it. Appearance counts for a lot. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."
One FOSS tool that's out there is Interlisp Medley. There are efforts afoot to modernise this for current OSes.
How about just stealing the best bits and moving it to SBCL? Modernising its old monochrome GUI and updating its look and feel so it blends into a modern FOSS desktop?
Instead of pointing people at '70s tools like Emacs, assemble an all-graphical, multi-window, interactive IDE on top of the existing infrastructure and make it look pretty and inviting.
Keep the essential Lispiness by all means, but bring it into the 2020s and make it pretty and use standard terms and standard keystrokes, menu layouts, etc. So it looks modern and shiny, not some intimidating pre-GUI-era beast that will take months to learn.
Why bother? Who'll do it?
Well, Linux spent a decade or more as a weird, clunky, difficult and very specialist OS, which was just fine for its early user community... until it started catching up with Windows and Mac and growing into a pretty smooth, polished, quite modern desktop... partly fuelled by server advancements. Things like NetBSD still are and have zero mainstream presence.
Summary: You have to get in there and compete with mainstream, play their game by their rules, if you want to compete.
I'd like to have the option to give Emacs a proper try, but I am not learning an entire new vocabulary and a different UI to do it. I learned dozens of 'em back in the 1980s and it was a breath of fresh air when one standard one swept them all away.
There were very modern Lisp environments around before the rise of the Mac and Windows swept all else away. OpenGenera is still out there, but we can't legally run it any more -- it's IP that belongs to the people who inherited Symbolics when its founders died.
But Interlisp/Medley is still there and it's FOSS now. I think hardcore Lispers see stuff like a Lisp GUI and natively-graphical Lisp editors as pointless bells and whistles - Emacs was good enough for John McCarthy and it still is for me! - but they really are not in 2021.
There were others, too. Apple's Dylan project was built in Lisp, as was the amazing SK8 development environment. They're still out there somewhere.
Don't worry, there are still people angrily shouting at me as well.
This was the earlier comment, I think... There was a slightly forlorn comment in the Reddit Lisp community, talking about this article, which I much enjoyed myself:
Hell Is Other REPLs: Being Mutable and Avoiding Bad Faith ProgrammingSomeone was asking why so few people seemed interested in Lisp.
As an outsider - a writer and researcher delving into the history of OSes and programming languages far more than an actual programmer - my suspicion is that part of the problem is that this positively ancient language has accumulated a collection of powerful but also ancient tooling, and it's profoundly off-putting to young people used to modern tools who approach it.
Let me describe what happened and why it's relevant.
I am not young. I first encountered UNIX in the late 1980s, and UNIX editors at the same time. But I had already gone through multiple OS transitions by then:
[1] weird tiny BASICs and totally proprietary, very limited editors.
[2] early standardised microcomputer OSes, such as CP/M, with more polished and far more powerful tools.
[3] I personally went from that to an Acorn Archimedes: a powerful 32-bit RISC workstation with a totally proprietary OS (although it's still around and it's FOSS now) descended from a line of microcomputers as old as CP/M, meaning no influence from CP/M or the American mainstream of computers. Very weird command lines, very weird filesystems, very weird editors, but all integrated and very powerful and capable.
[4] Then I moved to the same tools I used at work: DOS and Windows, although I ran them under OS/2. I saw the strange UIs of CP/M tools that had come across to the DOS world run up against the new wave of standardisation imposed by (classic) MacOS and early Windows.
This meant: standard layouts for menus, contents of menus, for dialog boxes, for keystrokes as well as mouse actions. UIs got forcibly standardised and late-1980s/early-1990s DOS apps mostly had to conform, or die.
And they did. Even then-modern apps like WordPerfect gained menu bars and changed their weird keystrokes to conform. If their own weird UIs conflicted, then the standards took over. WordPerfect had a very powerful, efficient, UI driven by function keys. But it wasn't compatible with the new standards. It used F3 for help and Escape to repeat a character, command or macro. The new standards said F1 must be help and Esc must be cancel. So WordPerfect complied.
And until the company stumbled, porting to OS/2 and ignoring Windows until it was too late, it worked. WordPerfect remained the dominant industry-standard, even as its UI got modernised. Users adapted.
So why am I talking about this?
Because the world of tools like Emacs never underwent this modernisation.
Like it or not, for 30 years now, there's been a standard language for UIs and so on. Files, windows, the clipboard, cut, copy, paste. Standard menus in standard places and standard commands on them with standard keystrokes.
Vi ignores this. Its fans love its power and efficiency and are willing to learn its weird UI.
Emacs ignores this, for the same reasons. The manual and tutorial talk about "buffers" and "scratchpads" and "Meta keys" and dozens of things that no computer made in 40 years has: a whole different language before the Mac and DOS and Windows transformed the world of computing.
The result of this is that if you read guides and so on about Lisp environments, they don't tell you how to use it with the tools you already know, in terms you're familiar with.
Instead they recommend really weird editors and weird add-ons and tools and options for those editors, all from long before this era of standardization. They don't discuss using Sublime Text or Atom or VS Code: no, it's "well you can use your own editor but we recommend EMACS and SLIME and just learn the weird UI, it's worth it. Trust us."
It's counter-productive and it turns people off.
I propose that a better approach would be to modernize some of the tooling, forcibly make it conform to modern standards. I'm not talking about trivial stuff like CUA-mode, but bigger changes, such as ErgoEmacs. By all means leave the old UI there and make it possible for those who have existing configs to keep it, but update the tools to use standard terminology, use the names printed on actual 21st century keyboards, and editors that work the same way as every single GUI editor out there.
Then once the barrier to entry is lowered a bit, start modernising it. Appearance counts for a lot. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."
One FOSS tool that's out there is Interlisp Medley. There are efforts afoot to modernise this for current OSes.
How about just stealing the best bits and moving it to SBCL? Modernising its old monochrome GUI and updating its look and feel so it blends into a modern FOSS desktop?
Instead of pointing people at '70s tools like Emacs, assemble an all-graphical, multi-window, interactive IDE on top of the existing infrastructure and make it look pretty and inviting.
Keep the essential Lispiness by all means, but bring it into the 2020s and make it pretty and use standard terms and standard keystrokes, menu layouts, etc. So it looks modern and shiny, not some intimidating pre-GUI-era beast that will take months to learn.
Why bother? Who'll do it?
Well, Linux spent a decade or more as a weird, clunky, difficult and very specialist OS, which was just fine for its early user community... until it started catching up with Windows and Mac and growing into a pretty smooth, polished, quite modern desktop... partly fuelled by server advancements. Things like NetBSD still are and have zero mainstream presence.
Summary: You have to get in there and compete with mainstream, play their game by their rules, if you want to compete.
I'd like to have the option to give Emacs a proper try, but I am not learning an entire new vocabulary and a different UI to do it. I learned dozens of 'em back in the 1980s and it was a breath of fresh air when one standard one swept them all away.
There were very modern Lisp environments around before the rise of the Mac and Windows swept all else away. OpenGenera is still out there, but we can't legally run it any more -- it's IP that belongs to the people who inherited Symbolics when its founders died.
But Interlisp/Medley is still there and it's FOSS now. I think hardcore Lispers see stuff like a Lisp GUI and natively-graphical Lisp editors as pointless bells and whistles - Emacs was good enough for John McCarthy and it still is for me! - but they really are not in 2021.
There were others, too. Apple's Dylan project was built in Lisp, as was the amazing SK8 development environment. They're still out there somewhere.