A Short History of Lisp

I normally listen to podcasts while I’m driving to and from work, so when we mentioned podcasts in class, I thought my routine would stay the same. However, since I haven’t left my house for a few weeks, this was the first podcast I’ve listened to while doing absolutely nothing else, which I think ended up being a good choice, even if the podcast was never too technical. 

I really like how Gabriel relates programming to art, as I feel that it’s commonly (and mistakenly) said that computer science and creativity are on different ends of a spectrum. In my very short career as a programmer, I’ve seen code that I would easily consider works of art (and others, not so much). 

Since the course started and I started listening to all the things Lisp could be used for, I have been wondering why it only recently started picking up steam, but Gabriel mentions a very important point: it’s not an easy language to learn. He mentions that it’s not too popular with companies, and that makes sense as it’s relatively difficult to read, which makes it inefficient when multiple people and teams are working on the same projects. 

However, I do see the use of functional programming, as it facilitates a lot of things that are too complicated to implement using different paradigms. So even though I find it hard to believe that a language like this will ever become as widespread as some of the languages we see today, other variations such as Clojure, that work with the Java Virtual Machine, could be used alongside these other languages to create better results. 

The only part of the podcast that I’m not sure I completely understand is when he mentions the meta-circular interpreter. I fully understand that it means that the interpreter is written in the same language that it is interpreting, but it’s not quite clear to me how the program is initially interpreted. 

Everyone Can Code

This reading left me with a very sour taste, even if I’m a little bit hopeful for the future. The fact that the only reason women were once prominent in coding is because it was seen as easy and “secretarial” is mind-boggling to me. The only reason I say I’m hopeful is because I can’t think of any fields today in which the same happens to the same degree, which must mean that there’s finally been some real change. 

That being said, despite all attempts to get women into STEM fields, and specifically programming, I think that we still haven’t resolved the issue with the culture around computer science. It’s true that for a lot of people, their first approach or peek into programming is video games. At least for me, that’s why I started using a computer. And talking to my peers, that’s the reason most of them did as well. And that led me to start programming, and it got me interested in the field. 

This by itself causes the percentage to skew towards men by a lot, since culturally, it’s still more normal for boys to get into video games and the like. I’ve noticed that the women I study with don’t feel part of the community, or at least not as much as some of us men. I’m aware that this is mostly due to different personalities, but I can’t help but feel that sexism might have a part in it. 

As for the future, as I mentioned above, I am hopeful. Since I’ve entered college, I’ve learned and seen through younger family members that the fight to get girls interested from an early age is working, and as more and more women go into the workforce and gain positions of power, I believe the workplace culture won’t be as toxic towards them, and once that happens, they’ll be able to regain the equal footing they once had in this industry. 


Source:
Thompson, C. (2019) The Secret History of Women in Coding. The New York Times Magazine, URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html