Old Lisp posts are cool, then if you want a refresher of what's happening in the CL ecosystem (tools, libraries, compilers…) here's an overview of the last two years (shameless plug): https://lisp-journey.gitlab.io/blog/these-years-in-common-li... and very cool new projects appeared in 2025.
It occurred to me this morning that I should learn Clojure instead of Rust for non-lowlevel code because Clojure solves the same problems Rust solves in a much simpler way. I'm a fan of Clojure author Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy" talk but otherwise don't know either language in detail and need to do more research.
The Clojure (or any Lisp) journey is very different, not because of the language per se, but because of the developer experience.
In Clojure, there's no appreciable compilation time.
During my work week I barely, if ever, restart the application I'm working on: I'm working inside of it via a REPL connection.
It's an entirely different ball game and if you just compare language features you are missing out on an incredible interactive coding experience.
Does it scroll? Because I like to scroll around when thinking about my program. I always imagine Lips REPL ppl saying they keep the entire program in their head but that can't be right. That's doing things the hard way.
You have files and editors for your files, eg emacs or vim or vscode.
Your editor is also directly connected to your running application and can compile individual functions or pieces of code to update the application without a full edit/compile/run/test loop. It happens way faster and more interactively while you code. You can directly inspect the running program and its data within that same framework and with the exact same tools and functions you use to code.
To answer another way, you don’t code your application in a REPL, like by line , but with all the tools you’d expect (editor or ide, git, etc) PLUS that live connection to your software.
You tell your editor to evaluate any arbitrary part of the source file you currently have open, and it does so in the context of your running application without stopping it.
Then you see the result in another pane of your editor.
It's pretty revelatory. You're molding your program while it's running.
The nice thing about REPLs is that you can try random snippets code. And as the sibling comments put it, you rarely switch to the prompt interface. Instead you `eval` a bit of code and it got sent to the running state of your program as if you've typed it as the prompt. It's more like brainstorming a program using a mood board.
You kinda have to keep track of the state, but the latter can be easily inspected so there's no need to keep it your head.
> Clojure solves the same problems Rust solves in a much simpler way
I'm curious about that, can you elaborate? I'm a beginner in Clojure and I only know a few concepts about Rust, but it seems to me that they solve (at least, currently) very different problems...
I only saw Rust being used in places where C or C++ would be used in the past (Linux kernel, CLI apps, desktop apps), while I only saw Clojure being used as a modern and functional Java and JS replacement.
Not to mention how different they are as languages (static vs dynamic typing, native vs jvm, borrow checker vs garbage collection)
The main problem that Rust tries to solve, and that functional programming (which Clojure heavily leans into) solves, is avoiding shared mutable state, which leads to data races and (potentially subtly) wrong concurrent programs. Functional programming avoids shared mutable state by avoiding mutable state. Operations are only represented as transformations instead of mutations. Other languages like Erlang / Elixir use message passing techniques like the Actor Model to avoid shared mutability. Instead of avoiding mutability, like in functional programming, in the Actor Model you avoid sharing, by instead sending messages around.
Rust is interesting because it solves the problem of shared mutable state, while allowing sharing, and allowing mutability, just not at the same time. State can be mutated until it is shared. While it is shared, it cannot be mutated. This is the goal of the ownership system in Rust.
> The main problem that Rust tries to solve, and that functional programming (which Clojure heavily leans into) solves, is avoiding shared mutable state
I would argue that avoiding _unrestricted_ shared mutable state is a mean for Rust, not a goal. The main goal would be to provide a way to make safe, fast and non garbage collected programs, which doesn't seem at all what clojure is aiming for.
As proven by ongoing research in things like Linear Haskell, one doesn't need to throw GC productiviy away, to get deterministic resource management.
Best part of Rust is catering to a crowd that not even at point gun will consider touching anything that might resemble having any kind of automatic resource management.
Hence why I consider articles like "How We Saved 70% of CPU and 60% of Memory in Refinery’s Go Code, No Rust Required" [0] interesting to read and make awareness, even if Go isn't one of the languages I happen to be entusiastic about.
Well, erlang and elixir operate on almost exclusively immutable data, in addition to message passing between "processes". They are more strict than most other languages in that regard.
One thing that jumped out at me is you don't need Rust's borrow checker to prevent thread race conditions because data in Clojure is immutable. That's a huge simplification over Rust. What I hear mostly about Rust is complaints about the borrow checker. I wrote a simple Rust utility and found it frustrating. But again, don't take my word for it because I don't know either language.
As someone who has gone deep into both functional programming (with Elixir, Clojure, and Scala) and also Rust, they solve the same problem in different ways with different tradeoffs.
The problem is that shared mutable state is incredibly hard to get correct, especially when concurrency enters the picture.
Elixir and Clojure sidestep the problem by making copying data so cheap that instead of sharing references to mutable data, you make all data immutable and copy it whenever you want to change it in some way. (Which is a classic technique: don’t like the problem? Solve a different problem that sidesteps the original problem in a creative way)
So you have a lot of functions of roughly the shape `f -> f` (return a new thing) instead of `f -> ()` (mutate a thing in place).
This possible at all by the clever use of some novel data immutable structures like HAMTs that are able to approximate the performance of traditional mutable data structures like hashmaps or arrays while presenting an immutable API.
As it turns out, this is a much easier programming model for most of us to get correct in practice (especially in the presence of concurrency) than sharing mutable state in an imperative programming language like C or Java or Python.
The tradeoff is that the immutable functional data structures actually do have a some performance overhead. In most domains it's not large enough to matter, but in some domains it is, and in those domains you really do need mutable state to eek out that last bit of performance.
Which is where Rust comes in.
In Rust's model, data can either mutable or shared, but not both at the same time. The Rust compiler computes the lifetimes of data throughout your program to ensure that this invariant is upheld, so mutable data is not shared, and shared data is not mutated.
The downside of this is that you have to internalize these rules and program to them. They can be tough to learn and tough to program with even after you have learned them, though it does get much easier with experience, I will say.
The upside of Rust's model is that you can have your cake and eat it too: you can keep the high performance ceiling of a true mutable data model while maintaining memory and resource safety.
In short, you can think of Clojure/Elixir as sidestepping the shared mutability problem at the cost of some runtime performance (though again in practice it is smaller than you would think), and Rust as tackling the shared mutability problem head on by transferring the cost of solving the problem to a more complicated compiler and a harder-to-learn programming model.
These are just my opinions having used both Rust and the immutable data functional programming stuff in anger. I'm not trying to present one as being better than the other, the key point is that they're both better than what came before.
It's worth noting that there's several implementations of persistent/immutable/functional data structures for Rust already, and a few basic "building blocks" (namely std::borrow::Cow, noted for its bovine superpowers) are even in the Rust standard library. It's possible that we'll see more of them standardized in the future if a case can be made that they're useful and a consensus is reached wrt. some kind of minimally viable APIs.
My read today is that the advantage of Rust over C/C++ is that the compiler enforces the rules, where in C/C++ you'd have to use a static source code analyzer to find omissions. Since Clojure uses Software Transactional Memory and Persistant Data Structures to only make copies of updated shared data structures, it seems like it could actually be faster than Rust/C/C++ depending on how efficient the copy is. I may have it wrong but it sure is interesting...
While STM was a big selling point when Clojure in practice it's actually very rarely used. The persistent data structures are indeed the heart of Clojure.
While for many applications Clojure's performance is good enough it's not anywhere near what you can achieve with Rust. I once did a small game in Clojure trying to be very clever to eke out every last bit of performance and still didn't hit an acceptable frame rate. Made a very naive reimplementation in Rust that involved copying the entire state every frame and it run buttery smooth.
If there is a task for wish persistent data structures are the most performant solution it should be easy enough to implement and use them in rust too. Probably someone already did that.
Clojure is my default programming language but if I want performance (or static types) I reach for Rust.
That’s my take after using Rust for half a decade. The type system is very powerful and can encode logic in types in a way that’s impossible in most other languages, which is how the borrow checker works (the lifetime of a reference is part of its type).
> can encode logic in types in a way that’s impossible in most other languages
It’d be of great help if you could share an example of this along with an explanation why it’s impossible in a different language say one of Java/C++/Go
I would argue that F# would be the choice of language in place of Rust if you don't want to deal with Rust's type system. F# is immutable by default with good concurrency and a static type system.
That's a great suggestion I had forgotten about, which is strange since I'm a C# programmer. Part of me wants to really learn a Lisp to see what it is special about it that I keep hearing about. I tried Racket and Steel Bank Common Lisp but they didn't seem appropriate for the commercial programming I'm used to. Clojure is being used commercially.
I also really like Lisps/Schemes. I've always wanted to pick up Clojure but don't like how it thinly sits on top of the JVM compared to F# being deeply integrated. I always had trouble getting Clojure properly installed compared to just downloading .NET and having F# or easily downloading Racket.
You should absolutely try out F#. :) It's a great language.
Also, if you're looking for the magic of Lisp/Scheme, I think you might really enjoy Elixir/Erlang. Elixir has macros, has purely immutable data (there is _no_ way whatsoever to get mutable data unlike F#, Racket, Clojure, etc.), live code updates, and the BEAM VM, its process framework, and OTP are quite magical.
When I first learned Erlang, I felt I had come home. I mainly used Elixir though due to the available packages and jobs.
The late great Joe Armstrong is missed! Good suggestion, I will take a look at Elixer/Erlang. It's the least I can do for the laughs Joe gave me in his videos.
Shameless plug if you like videos: I gave a talk about Erlang, building the language (focus on semantics, not syntax) up from the fact that the = sign doubles as a runtime assertion.
Joe was indeed a great guy. I was lucky enough to spend some private time with him when he was visiting Chicago to give a talk, a true renaissance man with wide-ranging interests.
Good talk! I didn't believe that Go example was real at first. A bit strange. I always think of Alan Kay's message passing objects when listening to descriptions of Erlang and tonight I also thought about Kubernetes pods. The other thought is one you touched on is that some systems are monolithic so you have to handle errors. Thanks, I enjoyed that.
As an anecdote, about a year ago I realized I was not having that much fun learning rust. Randomly landed on clojure instead and have absolutely loved it.
Particularly as a noob, babashka is SUCH a good way to learn the language. I’ve written myself all sorts of fun utilities with babashka and have learned so much clojure along the way. Even got my coworkers to use my bb scripts!
I would recommend taking a look at some of the schemes. In particular I've been having tons of fun with CHICKEN: https://call-cc.org/ - the fact that it compiles to C and can generate binaries is a great plus.
I have been enjoying Chez scheme these last few weeks, and having an LLM has helped me when i have missing libraries. The ability to just wrap a C library and statically link everything into a single binary has been really nice too!
Clojure is a niche language that (for realistic purposes) is still tied to a single platform, the JVM, which (Clojure, not the JVM) looks more dead with every passing year. It never became popular and it's been steadily losing users. It's also not as general purpose as Common Lisp (ie. not suited for system or lowlevel programming).
If you're going to learn a niche Lisp, you might as well learn Common Lisp or Scheme which have well-specified standards, have stood the test of time and will still be around for decades to come.
Although niche, things are pretty lively in the community. Among other things this year great progress was made on Jank, the native LLVM-based implementation with seamless low-level C++ interop. As part of that work a test suite is being created [0] and now includes runners for all of the major implementations to compare compatibility, next best thing besides a formal specification.
Clojure will be around as long as the jvm. It’s mostly done at the core level, most updates are to leverage new host features nowadays. The rest is happily provided at the library level by the community (which is still very prolific).
And it’s not tied to the jvm per say, look at clojurescript (and derivatives) or the upcoming jank.
It’s far from dead. As much as I like CL, the ecosystem is a bit of a desert compared to the jvm.
JVM is very much not dead even slightly. They just released virtual threads, which are ridiculously awesome. Also it's not tied to a single platform, clojurescript lets you write clojure in browsers and on node.js, and babashka lets you use clojure in a scripting environment via a single executable
I haven't tried clojurescript but I'm fearful of languages that run on top of other languages or platformks, because of complications that produces for debugging.
How do you debug ClojureScript? Can you modify the source-code while in the debugger? That is a huge time-saver, you debug and see a typo and fix it right away. My preference are influenced by my background in Smalltalk's "live" environemnt: you see the variables, the stack, and can change anything without having to stop the debugging session and then have to go back to the "editor" and then locate the place you (now know) you want to modify, and then start again.
Hm I definitely haven’t tried a debugger! I’m not sure if that’s a PITA to set up. I had a terrible time trying to get a debugger working with typescript on top of node.
Since clojure is so REPL heavy I haven’t felt like I’m missing a debugger too much. But the smalltalk live environment sounds ridiculously cool. I do end up using REPLs to remote programs (even prod lol) pretty often, which is pretty crazy for me coming from a node background
Likely just not a statistically significant enough sample of any of those to justify them even putting them on the chart. Except maybe Dart, and that gets the "curse" of being front-end tech which for some inexplicable reason is underpaid.
Nope. I mostly happily used Python in my previous job for many years, now I'm doing Clojure. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but I don't know if I'd want to go back to Python. I'm a Lisper (Schemer, really) at heart so maybe I'm biased.
Having said that, I don't think I'd pick Clojure for unpaid (hobby) projects. The JVM is such a hog and I don't like anything related to the Java culture...
Just to counter-balance the inferred conclusion that Common Lisp would not have any commercial usage (sorry, words are important, FUD is too close from hasty wording or hasty conclusions): https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/ (example companies using CL today, and yes some pick it for new projects, and yes some hire) (and I don't want to argue if the list is impressive or not: it's some commercial usage :D best,)
The JVM has suffered a fate worse than death: it's become so wildly successful that it's boring. So much enterprise shit runs on Java that it has sort of faded into the background noise of civilization and, like the System/360 (now Z/OS) before it, doesn't grab headlines anymore.
Which makes Clojure extra tempting because there is a bit of a infectious way to get Clojure i to corporations when you are always just handing the ops guys a "Java" we app bundled as a jar but secretly inside it's all Clojure compiled classfiles that work perfectly run on many JVM-based web servers with no additional effort.
I think Rich even alludes to this fact in one of his talks where it would be disallowed to run Ruby/Python/Rust whatever but it's Java then it's a know entity.
Yeeeeah, except we're living in the DevOps era, which means things like "thinking about how this will be built and deployed" is now the devs', therefore the whole organization's, responsibility, and so you have to think about whether your CI/CD pipeline can accommodate, or be made to accommodate, the Clojure compiler, leiningen, et weary cetera.
There's another, orthogonal, aspect: I half-jokingly suggested Clojure as a substitute for one of the DSLs we use at work, and my idea was shot down by a teammate based on the reasoning that Clojure is hard and most of the Java devs (not my team, of course) in the shop are not up to learning it or coding in it. So that's another thing to consider: when you leave the company, who else will be up to maintaining what you produce?
Both of these considerations weigh strongly against attempts to "sneak Clojure in through the back door".
I frankly miss the JVM. I work almost exclusively in Rust these days and haven't worked in Java or Scala since 15 years ago, and I do prefer working closer to the metal.... But... The JVM is an amazing mature runtime with a boatload of tooling. JMX, which has been there since almost the beginning, is the kind of thing missing from almost everything other managed runtime I've worked with.
The amount of R&D that has gone into making it execute with good performance, and its overall stability...
Yeah, it's got the curse of being boring.
I do think it is perhaps unfortunate that Clojure is tied so heavily to the JVM, because I actually don't think it gains much from that ecosystem... but it's a product of the time it was first written.
Actually hell. I'm between jobs, I like Lisp, and I miss the JVM. I've never worked in Clojure, but does anybody want to hire me to work in it? :-)
> I do think it is perhaps unfortunate that Clojure is tied so heavily to the JVM, because I actually don't think it gains much from that ecosystem... but it's a product of the time it was first written.
When I was doing more Clojure, I loved that it was on the JVM because it meant I got to use every Java library under the sun. There are tons of battle tested Java libraries that didn't have to be rewritten in Clojure, and getting to use them for approximately zero financial and runtime cost was a HUGE benefit of Clojure compared to other niche FP languages.
> the JVM, which looks more dead with every passing year.
Lol, only dying/dead in the febrile imagination of some HN commenters. The JVM has had some of the most explosive feature activity in the last several years. Java had several million greenfield projects in 2024-25 - among the top 6 greenfield programming languages according to the Github Octoverse.
I'm curious why Lisp didn't gain mass popularity despite its advantages. In fact, I was wondering if it's popularity has event decreased in the past decade or so. I remember in the 2000s and even early 2010s, there were active discussion on Clojure, Scheme, and functional/logic programming in general. There seems much less discussion or usage nowadays. One theory is that popular languages have absorbed many features of functional programming, so the mainstream programmers do not feel the need to switch. My pet theory is that many of us mortals get the productivity boost from the ecosystem, in particular powerful libraries and frameworks. Given that, the amazing features of lisp, such as its s-expression, may not be powerful enough to sway users to switch.
Is it the right link? "Lisp" is mentioned once, in a good way. It's an old post too, it mentions Emacs' ilisp mode, which is the now unused ancestor of Slime.
> I'm curious why Lisp didn't gain mass popularity despite its advantages.
In my opinion Lisp is too flexible. I think the ideal use of Lisp is one or a few talented developers exploring the problem space and creating the MVP. Then a follow on team to reimplement it in a mainstream language that’s more maintainable by “mere mortals”.
Ime it’s similar to the fact that projects implemented with statically typed languages are easier to maintain than dynamically typed languages. Lisp is so flexible even lexical scoping (of variables for example) is a choice. Not what I’d care to have juniors or run of the mill seniors responsible for!
Lisp was the first to have first-class functions and garbage collection which have become common language features by now. But it also has many features that still are not widespread. Its metaprogramming is unparalleled, especially reader macros. A lot of its power comes from that. Rust macros and C++26 compile time reflection are steps in the right direction but still nowhere near what Lisp offers. Java's Project Babylon is also cool but not in the same ballpark.
When doing joint debugging with teammates, I've seen so many of them randomly add or remove & and * from C++ statements trying to get their code to compile, without bothering to reason through the issue. I suspect this stochastic approach to code development is pretty common. That is not going to unlock the benefits of metaprogramming either, where you have to deliberately build up the language you want to have.
Metaprogramming is extremely powerful but hard to use, especially for novices. I also think there is a general lack of education about programming languages and compilers at play here. So much of Lisps power comes from knowing that.
> It seems to me that LISP will probably be superseded for many purposes by a language that does to LISP what LISP does to machine language. Namely it will be a higher level language than LISP that, like LISP and machine language, can refer to its own programs. (However, a higher level language than LISP might have such a large declarative component that its texts may not correspond to programs. If what replaces the interpreter is smart enough, then the text written by a user will be more like a declarative description of the facts about a goal and the means available for attaining it than a program per se).
Pretty accurate foresight in 1980, in the "Mysteries and other Matters" section McCarthy predicting declarative textual description replacing lisp as a higher-level programming language, basically describing todays LLMs and agentic coding.
That is remarkable foresight. I've had Google Gemini take a Dart program it wrote for me and had it convert it to TypeScript while adding some additional requirements - so declarative programming and treating code as data
> Pretty accurate foresight in 1980, in the "Mysteries and other Matters" section McCarthy predicting declarative textual description replacing lisp as a higher-level programming language, basically describing todays LLMs and agentic coding.
To me, that sounds more like Prolog than agentic coding.
How many people are using LLMs to replace coding in Lisp? What code are these former Lispers producing with LLM Agents?
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think LLMs were created as some replacement for Lisp. I don't think they've replaced any programming language, but they do help quite a bit with autogeneration of Python & Javascript in particular.
LLMs seem better suited to help with the Tower of Babel we've created for ourselves: aws commands, Terraform modules, Java libraries, Javascript/React, obscure shell commands, etc.
The strength of Lisps is in ability to define DSLs and then concisely express solutions for problems in that domain. Arguably no other programming language was able to exceed or even match that power until now.
The math behind transformers is deterministic, so LLMs could be treated as compilers (putting aside intentionally adding temperature and non-determinism due to current internal GPU scheduling). In the future I imagine we could be able to declare a dependency on a model, hash its weights in a lockfile and the prompt/spec itself will be the code, which corresponds to that insight.
> the prompt/spec itself will be the code, which corresponds to that insight.
What I've understood from discussions on HN is that LLMs are non-deterministic. Am I right? So the same prompt when executed again could produce a different answer, a different program every time.
That would mean the prompt is not a great 'highleve lanaguage", it would get compiled into a different Lisp-program depending on the time of the day?
We know in hindsight that lisp became most useful for representing computation, but what ever happened to AI? McCarthy says it's characteristic of LISP. SICP also mentions AI as being fundamental to lisp at the beginning of the book. Norvig & Russel used Common Lisp for the first edition of their book. But, then what happened? Why did it just disappear for no reason?
Lisp was ideal for reasoning systems, its homoiconic and meta-programmable nature is perfect for manipulating symbolic structures and logic.
But when AI shifted toward numerical learning with neural networks, tensors, and GPU computation, Lisp’s strengths mattered less, and Python became the new glue for C/CUDA libraries like NumPy, PyTorch and TensorFlow.
Still, nothing prevents Lisp from coming back. It would actually fit modern deep learning well if a "LispTorch" with a CUDA FFI existed. We would have macros for dynamic graph generation, functional composition of layers, symbolic inspection, interactive REPL exploration, automatic model rewriting etc.
We almost had it once: Yann LeCun’s SN (the first CNN) was built on a C core with a Lisp interpreter on top to define, develop and inspect the network. It eventually evolved into Lush, essentially "Lisp for neural networks", which in turn inspired Torch and later PyTorch.
So Lisp didn't die in AI, it's just waiting for the right people to realize its potential for modern neural networks and bring it back. Jank in particular will probably be a good contender for a LispTorch.
Norvig actually did comment on this publicly once on the Lex Friedman podcast. Basically what he said was that lisp ended up not working well for larger software projects with 5 or more people on them, and the reason why they never used lisp in any of their books again was because students didn't like lisp. Norvig doesn't seem to get why students didn't like lisp, and neither do I but somehow this is the real reason why it was abandoned.
> Basically what he said was that lisp ended up not working well for larger software projects with 5 or more people on them
I don’t think "doesn’t work for teams of 5+" is a fair generalization. There are production Clojure and Emacs (Lisp) codebases with far more contributors than that.
Language adoption is driven less by inherent team-size limits and more by social and practical factors. Some students probably don't like Lisp because most people naturally think in imperative/procedural terms. SCIP was doing a great job teaching functional and symbolic approaches, I wish they hadn't shifted their courses to Python, since that increases the gravitational pull toward cognitive standardization.
The AI winter happened. And the AI they talk about is classical, symbolic AI where you try to explicitly represent knowledge inside the computer. The new LLM stuff is all neural networks, and those benefit more from fast low-level vector implementations than high-level ease of symbolic manipulation.
So modern AI is all mostly C or even Fortran, often driven from something more pedestrian, like Python.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but one avenue to implement AI is genetic programming, where programs are manipulated to reach a goal.
Lisp languages are great for these manipulations, since the AST being manipulated is the same data structure (a list) as everything else. In other words, genetic programming can lean into Lisp's "code is data" paradigm.
As others mentioned, today everything is based on neural networks, so people aren't learning these other techniques.
I'm referring to the fundamental idea in AI of knowledge representation. Lisp is ideal for chapters 1 through 4 of AIMA, and TensorFlow has shown that NN can be solved well with a domain specific language which lisp is known to be great for.
I think when programmers are introduced to languages, most grok procedural ones easier than functional ones, hence Lisp and its derivatives have struggled in popularity for decades.
From what I've understood about Haskell is that it allows you to divide your program into parts which are either pure functional, or mutable. That is great when you read the program, you can know that what you are reading now is immutable, whereas in the some other well designated parts it is mutable.
But with Lisps isn't it the case that statement 1 can be immutable while the next statement 2 is mutable? In other words it mixes mutable and immutable calls into the same program-file without really isolating them from each other in any way. And that means if one part of the program is "impure", so is all of it. You can't isolate those parts except by following a convention, but conventions are not something that it enforces. And you can't know which parts of your program are pure except by reading the code-statements in detail. Am I right?
I have been thinking about the reason why Lisps aren't more popular today. I'm not sure yours is the right reason though. It seems like the statement you make would be no more true today than in the 80s, when Lisp was much more popular.
Ultimately I think it might just be fads. Object oriented programming came along at the same time as the web, when the demand for programmers grew dramatically. That may have crystallized OO and imperative languages as the "default" style. Would be interesting to see the alternate universe where JavaScript actually was a Lisp.
JavaScript has been called "Lisp in C's clothing". JavaScript is not a "pure" functional language but are any of the Lisps either? They might have immutability as the default. But I don't see why an Object-Oriented language could not have immutability as the default as well?
Back in the 80s we had logo, that was super popular and a common way a lot of people (kids) learned programming, the birth of turtle graphics! That repl way of programming and getting visual results was really good. I think the biggest problem was that none of those languages were the languages for making games.
When I teach I constantly tell them to start with data and hard coded, literal data representations, this seems to make it rather easy to get used to a functional style.
Old Lisp posts are cool, then if you want a refresher of what's happening in the CL ecosystem (tools, libraries, compilers…) here's an overview of the last two years (shameless plug): https://lisp-journey.gitlab.io/blog/these-years-in-common-li... and very cool new projects appeared in 2025.
It occurred to me this morning that I should learn Clojure instead of Rust for non-lowlevel code because Clojure solves the same problems Rust solves in a much simpler way. I'm a fan of Clojure author Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy" talk but otherwise don't know either language in detail and need to do more research.
The Clojure (or any Lisp) journey is very different, not because of the language per se, but because of the developer experience.
In Clojure, there's no appreciable compilation time. During my work week I barely, if ever, restart the application I'm working on: I'm working inside of it via a REPL connection.
It's an entirely different ball game and if you just compare language features you are missing out on an incredible interactive coding experience.
To note that the same experience is shared with Smalltalk, and modern IDEs still are lacking of both.
Does it scroll? Because I like to scroll around when thinking about my program. I always imagine Lips REPL ppl saying they keep the entire program in their head but that can't be right. That's doing things the hard way.
You have files and editors for your files, eg emacs or vim or vscode.
Your editor is also directly connected to your running application and can compile individual functions or pieces of code to update the application without a full edit/compile/run/test loop. It happens way faster and more interactively while you code. You can directly inspect the running program and its data within that same framework and with the exact same tools and functions you use to code.
To answer another way, you don’t code your application in a REPL, like by line , but with all the tools you’d expect (editor or ide, git, etc) PLUS that live connection to your software.
You tell your editor to evaluate any arbitrary part of the source file you currently have open, and it does so in the context of your running application without stopping it.
Then you see the result in another pane of your editor.
It's pretty revelatory. You're molding your program while it's running.
The nice thing about REPLs is that you can try random snippets code. And as the sibling comments put it, you rarely switch to the prompt interface. Instead you `eval` a bit of code and it got sent to the running state of your program as if you've typed it as the prompt. It's more like brainstorming a program using a mood board.
You kinda have to keep track of the state, but the latter can be easily inspected so there's no need to keep it your head.
I'd even say it gives you an incentive to not keep a lot of opaque state lying around and this is a good thing
Can confirm! Once I started doing this (now mainly with iPython interactive in VSCode) my output speed increased dramatically
> Clojure solves the same problems Rust solves in a much simpler way
I'm curious about that, can you elaborate? I'm a beginner in Clojure and I only know a few concepts about Rust, but it seems to me that they solve (at least, currently) very different problems...
I only saw Rust being used in places where C or C++ would be used in the past (Linux kernel, CLI apps, desktop apps), while I only saw Clojure being used as a modern and functional Java and JS replacement.
Not to mention how different they are as languages (static vs dynamic typing, native vs jvm, borrow checker vs garbage collection)
The main problem that Rust tries to solve, and that functional programming (which Clojure heavily leans into) solves, is avoiding shared mutable state, which leads to data races and (potentially subtly) wrong concurrent programs. Functional programming avoids shared mutable state by avoiding mutable state. Operations are only represented as transformations instead of mutations. Other languages like Erlang / Elixir use message passing techniques like the Actor Model to avoid shared mutability. Instead of avoiding mutability, like in functional programming, in the Actor Model you avoid sharing, by instead sending messages around.
Rust is interesting because it solves the problem of shared mutable state, while allowing sharing, and allowing mutability, just not at the same time. State can be mutated until it is shared. While it is shared, it cannot be mutated. This is the goal of the ownership system in Rust.
> The main problem that Rust tries to solve, and that functional programming (which Clojure heavily leans into) solves, is avoiding shared mutable state
I would argue that avoiding _unrestricted_ shared mutable state is a mean for Rust, not a goal. The main goal would be to provide a way to make safe, fast and non garbage collected programs, which doesn't seem at all what clojure is aiming for.
As proven by ongoing research in things like Linear Haskell, one doesn't need to throw GC productiviy away, to get deterministic resource management.
Best part of Rust is catering to a crowd that not even at point gun will consider touching anything that might resemble having any kind of automatic resource management.
Hence why I consider articles like "How We Saved 70% of CPU and 60% of Memory in Refinery’s Go Code, No Rust Required" [0] interesting to read and make awareness, even if Go isn't one of the languages I happen to be entusiastic about.
[0] - https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/how-we-saved-70-cpu-60-memory-...
Well, erlang and elixir operate on almost exclusively immutable data, in addition to message passing between "processes". They are more strict than most other languages in that regard.
Mutation occurs at the actor level. Their state is mutated by changing how they respond to future messages.
One thing that jumped out at me is you don't need Rust's borrow checker to prevent thread race conditions because data in Clojure is immutable. That's a huge simplification over Rust. What I hear mostly about Rust is complaints about the borrow checker. I wrote a simple Rust utility and found it frustrating. But again, don't take my word for it because I don't know either language.
As someone who has gone deep into both functional programming (with Elixir, Clojure, and Scala) and also Rust, they solve the same problem in different ways with different tradeoffs.
The problem is that shared mutable state is incredibly hard to get correct, especially when concurrency enters the picture.
Elixir and Clojure sidestep the problem by making copying data so cheap that instead of sharing references to mutable data, you make all data immutable and copy it whenever you want to change it in some way. (Which is a classic technique: don’t like the problem? Solve a different problem that sidesteps the original problem in a creative way)
So you have a lot of functions of roughly the shape `f -> f` (return a new thing) instead of `f -> ()` (mutate a thing in place).
This possible at all by the clever use of some novel data immutable structures like HAMTs that are able to approximate the performance of traditional mutable data structures like hashmaps or arrays while presenting an immutable API.
As it turns out, this is a much easier programming model for most of us to get correct in practice (especially in the presence of concurrency) than sharing mutable state in an imperative programming language like C or Java or Python.
The tradeoff is that the immutable functional data structures actually do have a some performance overhead. In most domains it's not large enough to matter, but in some domains it is, and in those domains you really do need mutable state to eek out that last bit of performance.
Which is where Rust comes in.
In Rust's model, data can either mutable or shared, but not both at the same time. The Rust compiler computes the lifetimes of data throughout your program to ensure that this invariant is upheld, so mutable data is not shared, and shared data is not mutated.
The downside of this is that you have to internalize these rules and program to them. They can be tough to learn and tough to program with even after you have learned them, though it does get much easier with experience, I will say.
The upside of Rust's model is that you can have your cake and eat it too: you can keep the high performance ceiling of a true mutable data model while maintaining memory and resource safety.
In short, you can think of Clojure/Elixir as sidestepping the shared mutability problem at the cost of some runtime performance (though again in practice it is smaller than you would think), and Rust as tackling the shared mutability problem head on by transferring the cost of solving the problem to a more complicated compiler and a harder-to-learn programming model.
These are just my opinions having used both Rust and the immutable data functional programming stuff in anger. I'm not trying to present one as being better than the other, the key point is that they're both better than what came before.
It's worth noting that there's several implementations of persistent/immutable/functional data structures for Rust already, and a few basic "building blocks" (namely std::borrow::Cow, noted for its bovine superpowers) are even in the Rust standard library. It's possible that we'll see more of them standardized in the future if a case can be made that they're useful and a consensus is reached wrt. some kind of minimally viable APIs.
My read today is that the advantage of Rust over C/C++ is that the compiler enforces the rules, where in C/C++ you'd have to use a static source code analyzer to find omissions. Since Clojure uses Software Transactional Memory and Persistant Data Structures to only make copies of updated shared data structures, it seems like it could actually be faster than Rust/C/C++ depending on how efficient the copy is. I may have it wrong but it sure is interesting...
While STM was a big selling point when Clojure in practice it's actually very rarely used. The persistent data structures are indeed the heart of Clojure.
While for many applications Clojure's performance is good enough it's not anywhere near what you can achieve with Rust. I once did a small game in Clojure trying to be very clever to eke out every last bit of performance and still didn't hit an acceptable frame rate. Made a very naive reimplementation in Rust that involved copying the entire state every frame and it run buttery smooth.
If there is a task for wish persistent data structures are the most performant solution it should be easy enough to implement and use them in rust too. Probably someone already did that.
Clojure is my default programming language but if I want performance (or static types) I reach for Rust.
> in C/C++ you'd have to use a static source code analyzer to find omissions
Clang and GCC have a pretty solid suite of static checks that they can enforce if you enable them. They catch most of the common footguns.
That’s my take after using Rust for half a decade. The type system is very powerful and can encode logic in types in a way that’s impossible in most other languages, which is how the borrow checker works (the lifetime of a reference is part of its type).
> can encode logic in types in a way that’s impossible in most other languages
It’d be of great help if you could share an example of this along with an explanation why it’s impossible in a different language say one of Java/C++/Go
Did you look into zig and their solution ?
I would argue that F# would be the choice of language in place of Rust if you don't want to deal with Rust's type system. F# is immutable by default with good concurrency and a static type system.
That's a great suggestion I had forgotten about, which is strange since I'm a C# programmer. Part of me wants to really learn a Lisp to see what it is special about it that I keep hearing about. I tried Racket and Steel Bank Common Lisp but they didn't seem appropriate for the commercial programming I'm used to. Clojure is being used commercially.
I also really like Lisps/Schemes. I've always wanted to pick up Clojure but don't like how it thinly sits on top of the JVM compared to F# being deeply integrated. I always had trouble getting Clojure properly installed compared to just downloading .NET and having F# or easily downloading Racket.
You should absolutely try out F#. :) It's a great language.
Also, if you're looking for the magic of Lisp/Scheme, I think you might really enjoy Elixir/Erlang. Elixir has macros, has purely immutable data (there is _no_ way whatsoever to get mutable data unlike F#, Racket, Clojure, etc.), live code updates, and the BEAM VM, its process framework, and OTP are quite magical.
When I first learned Erlang, I felt I had come home. I mainly used Elixir though due to the available packages and jobs.
The late great Joe Armstrong is missed! Good suggestion, I will take a look at Elixer/Erlang. It's the least I can do for the laughs Joe gave me in his videos.
Shameless plug if you like videos: I gave a talk about Erlang, building the language (focus on semantics, not syntax) up from the fact that the = sign doubles as a runtime assertion.
https://youtu.be/E18shi1qIHU
Joe was indeed a great guy. I was lucky enough to spend some private time with him when he was visiting Chicago to give a talk, a true renaissance man with wide-ranging interests.
Good talk! I didn't believe that Go example was real at first. A bit strange. I always think of Alan Kay's message passing objects when listening to descriptions of Erlang and tonight I also thought about Kubernetes pods. The other thought is one you touched on is that some systems are monolithic so you have to handle errors. Thanks, I enjoyed that.
This the “non-low level” code qualification.
As an anecdote, about a year ago I realized I was not having that much fun learning rust. Randomly landed on clojure instead and have absolutely loved it.
Particularly as a noob, babashka is SUCH a good way to learn the language. I’ve written myself all sorts of fun utilities with babashka and have learned so much clojure along the way. Even got my coworkers to use my bb scripts!
I would recommend taking a look at some of the schemes. In particular I've been having tons of fun with CHICKEN: https://call-cc.org/ - the fact that it compiles to C and can generate binaries is a great plus.
I have been enjoying Chez scheme these last few weeks, and having an LLM has helped me when i have missing libraries. The ability to just wrap a C library and statically link everything into a single binary has been really nice too!
How does Clojure do on McCarthy's desiderata from this paper, as you see it?
Clojure is a niche language that (for realistic purposes) is still tied to a single platform, the JVM, which (Clojure, not the JVM) looks more dead with every passing year. It never became popular and it's been steadily losing users. It's also not as general purpose as Common Lisp (ie. not suited for system or lowlevel programming).
If you're going to learn a niche Lisp, you might as well learn Common Lisp or Scheme which have well-specified standards, have stood the test of time and will still be around for decades to come.
Although niche, things are pretty lively in the community. Among other things this year great progress was made on Jank, the native LLVM-based implementation with seamless low-level C++ interop. As part of that work a test suite is being created [0] and now includes runners for all of the major implementations to compare compatibility, next best thing besides a formal specification.
[0] https://github.com/jank-lang/clojure-test-suite
Clojure will be around as long as the jvm. It’s mostly done at the core level, most updates are to leverage new host features nowadays. The rest is happily provided at the library level by the community (which is still very prolific).
And it’s not tied to the jvm per say, look at clojurescript (and derivatives) or the upcoming jank.
It’s far from dead. As much as I like CL, the ecosystem is a bit of a desert compared to the jvm.
Wow. I clicked on your user name for some reason. You've been here 19 years and only have 34 karma and made only 16 comments!
Anyway, I came here to say Clojure also targets JavaScript and could target more like ClojureCLR https://clojure.org/about/clojureclr
Here, have another karma point!
Thanks! Long time lurker indeed.
I also forgot the very solid ClojureDart.
JVM is very much not dead even slightly. They just released virtual threads, which are ridiculously awesome. Also it's not tied to a single platform, clojurescript lets you write clojure in browsers and on node.js, and babashka lets you use clojure in a scripting environment via a single executable
I haven't tried clojurescript but I'm fearful of languages that run on top of other languages or platformks, because of complications that produces for debugging.
How do you debug ClojureScript? Can you modify the source-code while in the debugger? That is a huge time-saver, you debug and see a typo and fix it right away. My preference are influenced by my background in Smalltalk's "live" environemnt: you see the variables, the stack, and can change anything without having to stop the debugging session and then have to go back to the "editor" and then locate the place you (now know) you want to modify, and then start again.
Hm I definitely haven’t tried a debugger! I’m not sure if that’s a PITA to set up. I had a terrible time trying to get a debugger working with typescript on top of node.
Since clojure is so REPL heavy I haven’t felt like I’m missing a debugger too much. But the smalltalk live environment sounds ridiculously cool. I do end up using REPLs to remote programs (even prod lol) pretty often, which is pretty crazy for me coming from a node background
But also: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/work#3-salary-and-exper...
Prolog and Dart programmers earn the least, but Erlang and Clojure programmers earn the most? Something is fishy here...
I would take this statistics, like every other one, with a grain of salt, but still wanted to put it out there as a possible discussion point.
Likely just not a statistically significant enough sample of any of those to justify them even putting them on the chart. Except maybe Dart, and that gets the "curse" of being front-end tech which for some inexplicable reason is underpaid.
Yeah, that seems likely. Although it's lower than PHP!
>>Clojure programmers earn the most?
All the best finding a Clojure job though.
Im guessing they pay all that much, while simultaneously cursing themselves for not using Python instead, and swearing to never use Clojure again.
I know that as I have seen people do and say similar things about Perl and Erlang in the last decade.
Nope. I mostly happily used Python in my previous job for many years, now I'm doing Clojure. There are benefits and drawbacks to each, but I don't know if I'd want to go back to Python. I'm a Lisper (Schemer, really) at heart so maybe I'm biased.
Having said that, I don't think I'd pick Clojure for unpaid (hobby) projects. The JVM is such a hog and I don't like anything related to the Java culture...
I prefer CL, but… clojure at least has some commercial usage and is by far the most successful of current lisps, if we do not count elisp.
Just to counter-balance the inferred conclusion that Common Lisp would not have any commercial usage (sorry, words are important, FUD is too close from hasty wording or hasty conclusions): https://github.com/azzamsa/awesome-lisp-companies/ (example companies using CL today, and yes some pick it for new projects, and yes some hire) (and I don't want to argue if the list is impressive or not: it's some commercial usage :D best,)
Clojure is not going anywhere anytime soon.
It sees plenty use as Clojure/Clojurescript and Babashka. (and other niche variants). Jank is shaping up to be real nice too.
I don't care if it's niche if it solves my problems and gets the job done faster.
The JVM has suffered a fate worse than death: it's become so wildly successful that it's boring. So much enterprise shit runs on Java that it has sort of faded into the background noise of civilization and, like the System/360 (now Z/OS) before it, doesn't grab headlines anymore.
Which makes Clojure extra tempting because there is a bit of a infectious way to get Clojure i to corporations when you are always just handing the ops guys a "Java" we app bundled as a jar but secretly inside it's all Clojure compiled classfiles that work perfectly run on many JVM-based web servers with no additional effort.
I think Rich even alludes to this fact in one of his talks where it would be disallowed to run Ruby/Python/Rust whatever but it's Java then it's a know entity.
Yeeeeah, except we're living in the DevOps era, which means things like "thinking about how this will be built and deployed" is now the devs', therefore the whole organization's, responsibility, and so you have to think about whether your CI/CD pipeline can accommodate, or be made to accommodate, the Clojure compiler, leiningen, et weary cetera.
There's another, orthogonal, aspect: I half-jokingly suggested Clojure as a substitute for one of the DSLs we use at work, and my idea was shot down by a teammate based on the reasoning that Clojure is hard and most of the Java devs (not my team, of course) in the shop are not up to learning it or coding in it. So that's another thing to consider: when you leave the company, who else will be up to maintaining what you produce?
Both of these considerations weigh strongly against attempts to "sneak Clojure in through the back door".
I frankly miss the JVM. I work almost exclusively in Rust these days and haven't worked in Java or Scala since 15 years ago, and I do prefer working closer to the metal.... But... The JVM is an amazing mature runtime with a boatload of tooling. JMX, which has been there since almost the beginning, is the kind of thing missing from almost everything other managed runtime I've worked with.
The amount of R&D that has gone into making it execute with good performance, and its overall stability...
Yeah, it's got the curse of being boring.
I do think it is perhaps unfortunate that Clojure is tied so heavily to the JVM, because I actually don't think it gains much from that ecosystem... but it's a product of the time it was first written.
Actually hell. I'm between jobs, I like Lisp, and I miss the JVM. I've never worked in Clojure, but does anybody want to hire me to work in it? :-)
> I do think it is perhaps unfortunate that Clojure is tied so heavily to the JVM, because I actually don't think it gains much from that ecosystem... but it's a product of the time it was first written.
When I was doing more Clojure, I loved that it was on the JVM because it meant I got to use every Java library under the sun. There are tons of battle tested Java libraries that didn't have to be rewritten in Clojure, and getting to use them for approximately zero financial and runtime cost was a HUGE benefit of Clojure compared to other niche FP languages.
> the JVM, which looks more dead with every passing year.
Lol, only dying/dead in the febrile imagination of some HN commenters. The JVM has had some of the most explosive feature activity in the last several years. Java had several million greenfield projects in 2024-25 - among the top 6 greenfield programming languages according to the Github Octoverse.
You're saying that Clojure is looking more dead, so you suggest... Common Lisp? That looks considerably more dead than Clojure.
I'm not sure that Common Lisp looks less dead, but rather, more eternal.
I'm curious why Lisp didn't gain mass popularity despite its advantages. In fact, I was wondering if it's popularity has event decreased in the past decade or so. I remember in the 2000s and even early 2010s, there were active discussion on Clojure, Scheme, and functional/logic programming in general. There seems much less discussion or usage nowadays. One theory is that popular languages have absorbed many features of functional programming, so the mainstream programmers do not feel the need to switch. My pet theory is that many of us mortals get the productivity boost from the ecosystem, in particular powerful libraries and frameworks. Given that, the amazing features of lisp, such as its s-expression, may not be powerful enough to sway users to switch.
Lisp has disadvantages too. I wrote about some of them in https://paulgraham.com/redund.html.
Is it the right link? "Lisp" is mentioned once, in a good way. It's an old post too, it mentions Emacs' ilisp mode, which is the now unused ancestor of Slime.
it’s also Paul Graham’s website…
https://paulgraham.com/bio.html
it's confusing but there's actually written "kragen sitaker" on the article title as if it was an invite post.
> I'm curious why Lisp didn't gain mass popularity despite its advantages.
In my opinion Lisp is too flexible. I think the ideal use of Lisp is one or a few talented developers exploring the problem space and creating the MVP. Then a follow on team to reimplement it in a mainstream language that’s more maintainable by “mere mortals”.
Ime it’s similar to the fact that projects implemented with statically typed languages are easier to maintain than dynamically typed languages. Lisp is so flexible even lexical scoping (of variables for example) is a choice. Not what I’d care to have juniors or run of the mill seniors responsible for!
Clojure seems to be pretty strong. At least here in Brazil, several companies here use it as their main programming language
Lisp was the first to have first-class functions and garbage collection which have become common language features by now. But it also has many features that still are not widespread. Its metaprogramming is unparalleled, especially reader macros. A lot of its power comes from that. Rust macros and C++26 compile time reflection are steps in the right direction but still nowhere near what Lisp offers. Java's Project Babylon is also cool but not in the same ballpark.
When doing joint debugging with teammates, I've seen so many of them randomly add or remove & and * from C++ statements trying to get their code to compile, without bothering to reason through the issue. I suspect this stochastic approach to code development is pretty common. That is not going to unlock the benefits of metaprogramming either, where you have to deliberately build up the language you want to have.
Metaprogramming is extremely powerful but hard to use, especially for novices. I also think there is a general lack of education about programming languages and compilers at play here. So much of Lisps power comes from knowing that.
It’s cool how people keep finding new joy in old ideas like Lisp. Shows that good design never really dies.
> It seems to me that LISP will probably be superseded for many purposes by a language that does to LISP what LISP does to machine language. Namely it will be a higher level language than LISP that, like LISP and machine language, can refer to its own programs. (However, a higher level language than LISP might have such a large declarative component that its texts may not correspond to programs. If what replaces the interpreter is smart enough, then the text written by a user will be more like a declarative description of the facts about a goal and the means available for attaining it than a program per se).
Pretty accurate foresight in 1980, in the "Mysteries and other Matters" section McCarthy predicting declarative textual description replacing lisp as a higher-level programming language, basically describing todays LLMs and agentic coding.
That is remarkable foresight. I've had Google Gemini take a Dart program it wrote for me and had it convert it to TypeScript while adding some additional requirements - so declarative programming and treating code as data
I don't see the connection to LLMs. With LLMs, you have a highly non-deterministic system that is also highly probable to be incorrect.
It seems like a stretch to say that's what McCarthy was thinking about regarding declarative facts and goals driving a program.
> Pretty accurate foresight in 1980, in the "Mysteries and other Matters" section McCarthy predicting declarative textual description replacing lisp as a higher-level programming language, basically describing todays LLMs and agentic coding.
To me, that sounds more like Prolog than agentic coding.
How many people are using LLMs to replace coding in Lisp? What code are these former Lispers producing with LLM Agents?
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think LLMs were created as some replacement for Lisp. I don't think they've replaced any programming language, but they do help quite a bit with autogeneration of Python & Javascript in particular.
I've been having a great time generating Common Lisp code with LLMs. eg. https://github.com/atgreen/cl-tuition , https://github.com/atgreen/ctfg , etc.
Pull request incoming to add back your missing README emojis.
LLMs seem better suited to help with the Tower of Babel we've created for ourselves: aws commands, Terraform modules, Java libraries, Javascript/React, obscure shell commands, etc.
The strength of Lisps is in ability to define DSLs and then concisely express solutions for problems in that domain. Arguably no other programming language was able to exceed or even match that power until now.
The math behind transformers is deterministic, so LLMs could be treated as compilers (putting aside intentionally adding temperature and non-determinism due to current internal GPU scheduling). In the future I imagine we could be able to declare a dependency on a model, hash its weights in a lockfile and the prompt/spec itself will be the code, which corresponds to that insight.
> the prompt/spec itself will be the code, which corresponds to that insight.
What I've understood from discussions on HN is that LLMs are non-deterministic. Am I right? So the same prompt when executed again could produce a different answer, a different program every time.
That would mean the prompt is not a great 'highleve lanaguage", it would get compiled into a different Lisp-program depending on the time of the day?
Non-determinism is just a limitation of current implementations, but it is not a fundamental property: https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...
[dead]
[dead]
We know in hindsight that lisp became most useful for representing computation, but what ever happened to AI? McCarthy says it's characteristic of LISP. SICP also mentions AI as being fundamental to lisp at the beginning of the book. Norvig & Russel used Common Lisp for the first edition of their book. But, then what happened? Why did it just disappear for no reason?
Lisp didn’t really disappear, symbolic AI did.
Lisp was ideal for reasoning systems, its homoiconic and meta-programmable nature is perfect for manipulating symbolic structures and logic. But when AI shifted toward numerical learning with neural networks, tensors, and GPU computation, Lisp’s strengths mattered less, and Python became the new glue for C/CUDA libraries like NumPy, PyTorch and TensorFlow.
Still, nothing prevents Lisp from coming back. It would actually fit modern deep learning well if a "LispTorch" with a CUDA FFI existed. We would have macros for dynamic graph generation, functional composition of layers, symbolic inspection, interactive REPL exploration, automatic model rewriting etc.
We almost had it once: Yann LeCun’s SN (the first CNN) was built on a C core with a Lisp interpreter on top to define, develop and inspect the network. It eventually evolved into Lush, essentially "Lisp for neural networks", which in turn inspired Torch and later PyTorch.
https://x.com/ylecun/status/1944504502260003296?lang=en
So Lisp didn't die in AI, it's just waiting for the right people to realize its potential for modern neural networks and bring it back. Jank in particular will probably be a good contender for a LispTorch.
https://github.com/jank-lang/jank
Norvig actually did comment on this publicly once on the Lex Friedman podcast. Basically what he said was that lisp ended up not working well for larger software projects with 5 or more people on them, and the reason why they never used lisp in any of their books again was because students didn't like lisp. Norvig doesn't seem to get why students didn't like lisp, and neither do I but somehow this is the real reason why it was abandoned.
https://youtu.be/_VPxEcT_Adc?t=2690
> Basically what he said was that lisp ended up not working well for larger software projects with 5 or more people on them
I don’t think "doesn’t work for teams of 5+" is a fair generalization. There are production Clojure and Emacs (Lisp) codebases with far more contributors than that.
Language adoption is driven less by inherent team-size limits and more by social and practical factors. Some students probably don't like Lisp because most people naturally think in imperative/procedural terms. SCIP was doing a great job teaching functional and symbolic approaches, I wish they hadn't shifted their courses to Python, since that increases the gravitational pull toward cognitive standardization.
The AI winter happened. And the AI they talk about is classical, symbolic AI where you try to explicitly represent knowledge inside the computer. The new LLM stuff is all neural networks, and those benefit more from fast low-level vector implementations than high-level ease of symbolic manipulation.
So modern AI is all mostly C or even Fortran, often driven from something more pedestrian, like Python.
I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to, but one avenue to implement AI is genetic programming, where programs are manipulated to reach a goal.
Lisp languages are great for these manipulations, since the AST being manipulated is the same data structure (a list) as everything else. In other words, genetic programming can lean into Lisp's "code is data" paradigm.
As others mentioned, today everything is based on neural networks, so people aren't learning these other techniques.
I'm referring to the fundamental idea in AI of knowledge representation. Lisp is ideal for chapters 1 through 4 of AIMA, and TensorFlow has shown that NN can be solved well with a domain specific language which lisp is known to be great for.
In fact, the first edition of AIMA even had a NN and Perceptron implementation in Common Lisp. (https://github.com/aimacode/aima-lisp/blob/master/learning/a...)
nice, I was hacking common lisp this weekend.
Also this video was interesting, Oral History of John McCarthy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuU82i3hi8c&t=1564s
I think when programmers are introduced to languages, most grok procedural ones easier than functional ones, hence Lisp and its derivatives have struggled in popularity for decades.
Common Lisp supports both styles. Shoot, it probably favors procedural over functional a bit.
From what I've understood about Haskell is that it allows you to divide your program into parts which are either pure functional, or mutable. That is great when you read the program, you can know that what you are reading now is immutable, whereas in the some other well designated parts it is mutable.
But with Lisps isn't it the case that statement 1 can be immutable while the next statement 2 is mutable? In other words it mixes mutable and immutable calls into the same program-file without really isolating them from each other in any way. And that means if one part of the program is "impure", so is all of it. You can't isolate those parts except by following a convention, but conventions are not something that it enforces. And you can't know which parts of your program are pure except by reading the code-statements in detail. Am I right?
If you're into Haskell, you may like Coalton. It's an FP language written in CL with seamless interop.
https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton
Common Lisp is like the vast majority of programming languages, yes.
It supports basically all styles which makes it wonderfully useful in whatever domain you happen to find yourself in.
I have been thinking about the reason why Lisps aren't more popular today. I'm not sure yours is the right reason though. It seems like the statement you make would be no more true today than in the 80s, when Lisp was much more popular.
Ultimately I think it might just be fads. Object oriented programming came along at the same time as the web, when the demand for programmers grew dramatically. That may have crystallized OO and imperative languages as the "default" style. Would be interesting to see the alternate universe where JavaScript actually was a Lisp.
JavaScript has been called "Lisp in C's clothing". JavaScript is not a "pure" functional language but are any of the Lisps either? They might have immutability as the default. But I don't see why an Object-Oriented language could not have immutability as the default as well?
In the 80's Lisp was already over 20 years old.
Back in the 80s we had logo, that was super popular and a common way a lot of people (kids) learned programming, the birth of turtle graphics! That repl way of programming and getting visual results was really good. I think the biggest problem was that none of those languages were the languages for making games.
When I teach I constantly tell them to start with data and hard coded, literal data representations, this seems to make it rather easy to get used to a functional style.
[flagged]