So I’ve been teaching myself Common Lisp. It’s a slow process because I don’t get a lot of time to do it, and also Iâ€™m a bit slow. The reason Iâ€™ve been teaching myself? Well I’m wholly dissatisfied with C++, Java, C#, and to a much lesser extent Python. I still love C though. Sheâ€™s my lady. We connect.

The dissatisfaction started after I read Paul Graham’s “Hackers and Painters” book. I wrote about it too. Whilst reading the book I came across this paragraph and identied myself as a card-holding member of team â€œBlubâ€:

As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he’s looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they’re missing some feature he’s used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn’t realize he’s looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub.

Since then I’ve been on a journey. It’s taken me through books, well a book. I’ve discovered that Emacs is like 1 million times more powerful and sexy than her slightly musty smelling older sister Vi, with whom I’ve had an almost 15 year relationship and am trying to get out of my head. :x!

If you don’t believe me about Emacs (and why should you) consider how youâ€™d write a video editing suite in whatever code editor you use or can extend. I already knew long ago that Emacs is at least partly written in Emacs Lisp but I should have guessed that arguably the most productive Common Lisp development environment, or IDE, is also an Emacs extension called SLIME.

Soon after that I discovered some fantastic screencasts in the Ruby On Rails mould for stupid people (like me): SLIME, Hunchentoot, and Selenium. BTW, I know Selenium is not Common Lisp but the screencast presents a Common Lisp binding to the Selenium Remote Control server that makes it possible to use Selenium from Common Lisp as a testing framework.

So it feels like I’ve come along way. But today, your humble programmer-of-Blub discovered something on the HyperSpec that scared me a little. Through the PlanetLisp RSS feed I discovered that I am also really crap at mathematics. I did this by trying some of these puzzles. In attempting to solve puzzle #2 in Lisp I found I needed to brush up on some Lisp basics. After some digging, and through a series of HyperLinks, I ended up here and before that here:

... ;; This illustrates the use of SETQ on a symbol macro. (let ((x (list 10 20 30))) (symbol-macrolet ((y (car x)) (z (cadr x))) (setq y (1+ z) z (1+ y)) (list x y z))) => ((21 22 30) 21 22) ...

I think I stared at this code snippet for about 2 minutes before it finally made sense when I at last remembered that setf works on a place and not a symbol. Now, Iâ€™m guessing an experienced Lisp-er would look at the sample and say â€˜so-whatâ€™? Iâ€™m guessing that non-Lispers would say, anything that looks that complicated must be bad.

And this is when it struck me again. And this time it hurt. I may have lost a little â€œBlubâ€ to get this far but I still have way much more â€œBlubâ€ to lose.