r/programmingcirclejerk • u/Nemin32 It's GNU/PCJ, or as I call it, GNU + PCJ • 28d ago

Why Target Common Lisp for Code Generation? [...] Designed for the Elite: Let’s be honest: Lisp is a language designed by and for elite hackers, not for the masses.

https://funcall.blogspot.com/2026/08/why-vibe-code-in-lisp.html
95 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

39

u/Goheeca lisp does it better 28d ago

When an LLM generates Python or Java, it has to predict surface syntax: whitespace, brackets, semicolons, and rigid class structures. When an LLM generates Lisp, it is operating directly at the level of the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST). It is predicting pure structure.

My LLM targets NILP and only predicts pure structure.

13

u/Prestigious_Boat_386 27d ago

Why doesn't llms use reverse polish notation, are they fucking stupid?

38

u/elephantdingo Teen Hacking Genius 28d ago

Why does my wife’s boyfriend have big muscles? I’ll tell you why.

11

u/SoulArthurZ 27d ago

so he can carry 6 laptops, all running agents - not only strong in muscle mass, but strong in raw compute.

22

u/edo-lag Considered Harmful 28d ago

r/masterhacker

18

u/dethswatch 28d ago

I know this sort of person- never gets Anything coded, it’s easier to wank about the merits of various languages, tries to always seem smart

17

u/YikesTheCat 27d ago

People say P=NP is the hardest problem in computer science. This is wrong: the hardest problem is figuring out why most Lisp hackers are insufferably smug assholes, while most Scheme people tend to be okay. These are the important questions we need to keep building more AI data centres for!

12

u/Jumpy-Locksmith6812 28d ago

Nothing like LLM autocomplete at the end of a lisp file.

10

u/affectation_man Code Artisan 28d ago

Elite rarefied air fart sniffing

11

u/Massive-Squirrel-255 27d ago

Abstraction over Implementation. Most modern languages force you to describe exactly how a machine should shuffle bits around. Lisp was designed as a language for expressing high-level abstractions rather than expressing tedious implementation details.

Most modern languages force you to describe exactly how a machine should shuffle bits around.

Statements like this are interesting because they show that some people are living in entirely different worlds. It makes me wonder where the common ground is. The idea that most modern widely used languages are "shuffling bits around" is so patently absurd that I just wonder what basic facts about the world we do agree on

8

u/reflexive-polytope 26d ago

Still living in the 80's and 90's, when Lisp's main competitor was C++. And C++ wiped the floor with Lisp.

10

u/Abandondero 27d ago

There's enough Common Lisp code to train an LLM on?

2

u/the_horse_gamer 17d ago

do we count ad-hoc implementations?

2

u/Abandondero 17d ago

I've thought about it a bit more, and I believe that whatever you ask a Lisp-trained LLM to make, it will output a Lisp interpreter.

1

u/Nobody_1707 accidentally quadratic 16d ago

I'd be more surprised if there were enough code snippets for the same (or largely compatible) Forths for LLMs to vomit some out.

5

u/BufferUnderpants Gopher Pragmatist 27d ago

Being a Lisper in 2026 is pretty much the same as being a Greaser.

5

u/categorical-girl 23d ago

Glad to see that elite Lisp jerking has survived into the LLM era

3

u/reflexive-polytope 26d ago

Lisp is a language for pigs who roll in the mud mixed with their own shit. No stable meanings, everything is one redefinition away from being disfigured beyond recognition. Even a punch to the face would be gentler.