[harperlee]

The question then is how they plan to avoid The Lisp Curse (in my words, language giving you too much power makes you do weird things, and you attract people to like to use things a tad too powerful / generic, and you end up with an unproductive culture).

[codebje]

The primary culture around Lean is mathematicians looking to prove mathematics. AFAICT Lean is just about the right power for that.

Agda, OTOH, is IMO the dependently typed language for type theorists, and does weird things, but "unproductive" is applicable only for a somewhat narrow view of productivity.

I don't consider there to be a dependently typed language for writing programs that you just want to run, but I would be delighted to be corrected on that viewpoint!

[harperlee]

I think Idris 2 is targeted more to programming than to doing math, no?

[ux266478]

Yep. I also think it's the best designed out of any of them. As dependently typed languages have become more and more popular, I find it a bit sad that Idris has stayed relatively obscure.

[addaon]

Since you've clearly looked at this a bit... would you give a sentence or two comparing Indris, F*, and the other lesser known players in this space (languages for both writing and formally verifying programs)? I find it a wide space to explore, and while ecosystem maturity seems like a huge deciding factor right now, I assume there's real and meaningful differences between the languages as well.

[ux266478]

Idris is rather unique in that the development flow involves writing out your program as a trellis with "holes", and you work through your codebase interactively filling those holes. It feels like Haskell with an even more powerful type system and a companion expert system to alleviate the burden that the type-system's power entails. You're still basically always in program-land, mentally.

F* (and most other dependently-typed languages, or adjacent ones like Liquid Haskell) has a whole external SMT solver layer that lives outside of the language. Think like if SML modules were even less unified with the core language, and also most of your time was spent in that layer. They're really not fun to try and make complex software with, just because the context-switching required at scale is borderline inhuman.

Lean has a unified proof-system in the language like Idris, but it has much the same grain as the languages with external SMT solvers. You're spending most of your mental time in proofsland, thinking primarily about how to prove what you want to do. That's because with how Lean as a language is set up, you're basically centering all your reasoning around the goal. If there's a problem, you're adjusting the structure of your reasoning, changing your proof strategy, or identifying missing lemmas, etc.

You can kind of think of it as though Idris is "inside out" compared to most of the other dependently typed languages.

[codebje]

It's been a little bit since I looked at Idris, so I'll take a closer look now. The QTT behind it struck me as interesting but I didn't play around with it much. Thanks for the tip!

[yuppiemephisto]

lean IS that language https://github.com/alok/LeanPlot

[iLemming]

> you end up with an unproductive culture

Practical Lispers would like to have a word - I've been witnessing extreme productivity on some teams.

Modern Lisp dialects (Clojure and likes) largely broke library fragmentation and the "not invented here" tendency that were causing real tensions in Common Lisp.

You realize that "The Lisp Curse" isn't some paper, survey or objective reflection? It's just someone's essay back from 2011 - an opinion.

You can take it word-by-word and apply to say Javascript, and it would largely feel true - JS arguably has the worst fragmentation of any ecosystem; dozens of competing frameworks, build tools, bundlers, test runners; new frameworks constantly replacing old ones; "Javascript fatigue" is a real thing, etc., but nobody talks about "Curse of Javascript"

I learned Lisp (once) and that opened up path to Clojure, Clojurescript, then Fennel, Janet and Clojure-Dart, libpython-clj, there's Jank that is about to break loose. And something opposite to fragmentation happened to me - all these incompatible runtimes became unified and controllable from the same substrate - I no longer feel like I'm having to switch between languages - the syntax and thinking stays stable. The runtime is just a deployment target.

The curse essay says: "Lisp empowers fragmentation". Actual experience says: "Lisp provides unity across fragmentation that already existed"

[harperlee]

I mostly program with clojure. I'd love that I could agree with you. For clarity I was not meaning a culture of improductivity (but it also applies), and more of a trait of the culture that is improductive, choosing to focus productivity on the wrong goals, such as reinventing everything to do it "better", "more data-driven", "decomplected", etc.

> You can take it word-by-word and apply to say Javascript, and it would largely feel true - JS arguably has the worst fragmentation of any ecosystem; dozens of competing frameworks, build tools, bundlers, test runners; new frameworks constantly replacing old ones; "Javascript fatigue" is a real thing, etc., but nobody talks about "Curse of Javascript"

You also need to take into account the denominator of "number of users", though. Clojure, with a tiny population, had a cambric explosion of libraries, and now we can't argue that those are dead on one argument, and that those are "done" on the next one. There is a huge fragmentation in the clojure world, and on small populations, that hurts. Case in point: SQL libraries. Korma, yesql, hugsql, honeysql, and those are just the popular ones. Case in point: spec vs. schema vs. malli. Case in point: leiningen vs. boot vs. deps.

> I learned Lisp (once) and that opened up path to Clojure, Clojurescript, then Fennel, Janet and Clojure-Dart, libpython-clj, there's Jank that is about to break loose.

As we lispers like to say a lot, the syntax (or lack thereof) is the smallest of the issues. There is a lot of semantic difference between all of those (except libpython-clj, which does not belong to that list; but we could add Hy instead). That's even before starting to talk about library compatibility. So I'd contest whether having a common syntax is a major productivity gain.

[noLemming]

I think you're confusing newcomers landscape of "which library do I pick", (which is real) with stretched evidence for fundamentally fragmented ecosystem.

Let's walk through your examples:

SQL libraries: Korma is dead, YeSQL is dead, HugSQL is in maintenance mode. The community converged on next.jdbc + HoneySQL. That's not fragmentation - that's exploration followed by selection.

Build tools: Boot had its moment, it's essentially gone. Leiningen is still around but new projects overwhelmingly use deps.edn. That's not fragmentation either - it's a transition, and a remarkably clean one.

Spec vs. Schema vs. Malli is the most interesting case because the convergence is still in progress. Schema is effectively in maintenance mode. Spec has stalled (spec2 never really shipped). Malli is clearly gaining momentum as the community choice for new work, largely because it treats schemas as data — which is very Clojure. But even here, these aren't competing implementations of the same thing the way, say, Javascript build tools are. They have meaningfully different design philosophies, and the community is converging on the one that best fits Clojure's values.

Compare it to JS, where we have Webpack, Vite, esbuild, Parcel, Rollup, Turbopack, and the "winner" changes every 18 months. Or Python's packaging story - pip, pipenv, poetry, conda, PDM, uv - which is still a mess after decades with a vastly larger community. Fragmentation in large ecosystems often doesn't self-correct because there's enough mass to sustain competing approaches indefinitely.

The small community size that you frame as a weakness is actually why the self-correction works. There aren't enough people to sustain five competing SQL libraries, so the best one wins and everyone moves on. The tight community, the shared values around simplicity and data orientation, and the fact that people actually talk to each other - these create selection pressure that larger, more diffuse ecosystems lack.

The productivity gains aren't speculatory - from the most pragmatic angles, I see time and again - they are real and palpable.

[pydry]

>You realize that "The Lisp Curse" isn't some paper, survey or objective reflection? It's just someone's essay back from 2011 - an opinion.

It's also the deficit of code we actually use day to day that is actually written in lisp.

I file it under the same heading as haskell - a language that clearly has useful ideas, but...

[ux266478]

You're using Lisp software right now!

I think this is the most treacherous assumption people tend to make about programming languages, for a few reasons. One of them is that we really don't have any way to measure software that we actually use day to day.

Think about the software controlling your local water treatment plant, traffic lights, the software your local power company relies on, the software running the servers you connect to, and all the servers those things connect to. All the infrastructure in between and the infrastructure's own infrastructure. Allegro Lisp's customers are shotgun spread in industries like healthcare, finance and manufacturing. They're paying for it, so we can infer they're using it, but can anybody actually name what software is written in it?

If we play six degrees of separation, accounting for the full gamut of every single computer that does something relevant to your life no matter how distant, how much of that software are you actually familiar with? The fact of the matter is that we genuinely have no broad picture. There is no introspective method to find out what software you are relying on in your day to day life, almost all of it is completely opaque and implicit. To ask "what software do I use?" is to ask an unanswerable question. So to then synthesize an answer is to work with an unsound, unsupported, incomplete conclusion, which is exactly how you end up assuming you don't use software written in Lisp, while directly using software written in Lisp (HN)

Of course, even accounting for the epistemic issue, the premise is still flawed. ATS is a language with 'useful ideas, but...', Haskell is an aging pragmatic kitchen sink. Positioning the latter as the former is almost comedic.

[pydry]

That's a lot of words to say a lot of FUD.

I know people who work in the embedded space working on stuff similar to traffic lights and LISP isnt even on their radar. Rust is. LISP isnt.

Every niche language has its fanboys who can end up using it all over the place but when it doesnt spread to non fanboys there is usually a reason to which they are wilfully blind, usually related to its practical value.

[iLemming]

> Every niche language

Lisp is not a really a programming language. It is an idea.

Lisp didn't emerge the way most languages do - someone sitting down to design syntax and features for practical software engineering. McCarthy was formalizing a notation for computation itself, building on Church's lambda calculus. The fact that it turned out to be implementable was almost a surprise.

And that origin story matters because it explains why Lisp keeps regenerating. Most languages are artifacts - they're designed, they peak, they fossilize. Lisp is more like a principle that keeps getting re-instantiated: Common Lisp, Scheme, Racket, Clojure, Fennel, Jank. Each one is radically different in philosophy and pragmatics, yet they all share something that isn't really about parentheses - it's about code-as-data, minimal syntax hiding maximal abstraction, and the programmer's ability to reshape the language to match the problem rather than the reverse.

The counterargument, of course, is that at some point the idea has to become concrete to be useful, and once it does, it's subject to all the same engineering tradeoffs as any other language. Rich Hickey for example made very specific, opinionated decisions that are engineering choices, not mathematical inevitabilities. So there's a productive tension between Lisp-as-idea and any particular Lisp-as-language.

> related to its practical value.

Don't be daft, preaching pragmatics to modern Lispers is like trying to explain synaptic connections and their plasticity to neurosurgeons. They already know what's what - tis you who's clueless.

[ux266478]

You're all over the place here. Yes a chunk of my post is about the epistemic impossibility of knowing what software you rely on. I had to look up what FUD means, I assume it's just an algorithmbrained primitive cognate of epistemic skepticism.

At no point does a post about "You can't draw sweeping conclusions about this kind of thing" imply "all dark matter tech relies on esoteric stacks". I'm not sure why you would even bring up that anecdote?

> there is usually a reason to which they are willfully blind, usually related to its practical value.

Lame passive aggression aside, I'm not a Lisp "fanboy" and I actively don't like the grain of the language. Language adoption is always down to familiarity, taste and ecosystem constraints. But I'm also not deluded enough to assert something like this because I actually know better. It's an argument that's always positioned without substance, because there can be none. You're positioning ignorant snobbishness as enlightened pragmatism, no offense but that's just pretense. If you can't get a Lisp program working on a 100mhz microcontroller with 5k of flash, that's kind of a skill issue dude.

[noLemming]

What a thought-terminating cliché. It sounds reasonable while saying nothing. "Useful ideas, but..." what? "But it's not popular"? Neither was Python before it become one. But it doesn't have a big ecosystem? You're describing a consequence of adoption and presenting it as a cause.

Like I said: Clojure runs significant chunks of Walmart's infrastructure, Nubank's entire banking stack serving several hundred million customers - for a second, Nubank is the biggest digital bank in the world; Apple uses it; Cisco uses it. Emacs Lisp runs one of the most enduring pieces of software in computing history. You you ever used Grammarly - it's powered on Lisp; This very site runs on Lisp.

"I don't encounter Lisp in my work and that feels meaningful to me" (there's no other way to interpret your words) is just another, personal opinion that has no practical, objective angle. "The Curse of Lisp" opinion, at least back in the day had some objective relevance that no longer holds true.

[yuppiemephisto]

https://alok.github.io/assets/lean-position-paper.pdf

i talked about the lisp curse in this old paper. it's rough but explicitly mentions it

[hmokiguess]

Then again sometimes things don’t need to have productivity as a goal do they? Scale and context applies, could be seen as art even, an expression of someone’s psyche and their world model