this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
68 points (93.6% liked)
Programming
27178 readers
300 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why in your opinion do you think any person who wants to understand programming "deeply" (I'm not exactly sure what you mean with that) should learn lisp and haskell? It seems way way unnecessary.
And then you throw in SQL. Sure why not, but then why not javascript, Lua, c++, rust, PHP and a whole load of others who will teach you something unique most probably.
Not OP but I was a pretty competent C/C++/C# programmer first. Lisp and Haskell both totally changed how I thing about programming. I've used all the other languages you listed and I don't think any of them have a unique philosophy to offer, except maybe rust for the memory model.
Lisp teaches you how flexible programming languages should be. Haskell teaches you about things like higher kinded types, and exposes you to loads of cool category theory stuff. Other languages can probably accomplish these goals, but I don't think any of the alternatives you listed could.
Flexibility? Have you tried c++ 😁, check out template meta programming, and voilà rusts static memory management and compile time error checking in c++.
What I want to say is you don't need this or that language to grasp functionality, and IMO heskel and lisp probably have more interesting and modern counterparts, if you feel the need.
Some people want to learn programming to get a job, though perhaps not as many in 2026. Some people want to do a project that happens to requiring programming. Some actually want to understand programming and get good at it. The last group will benefit from learning Lisp and Haskell even if they don't end up using those languages much. I thought my first comment explained why and I think Corngood elaborated on it, but I'll add more.
The reason to use programming languages instead of machine/assembly languages is that they add abstractions, and allow the programmer to add more abstractions. An abstraction is a name and implementation for a repeated pattern in code, which documents the programmer's intent when it is used, allows all invocations to be modified in one place, and substantially shortens programs. In most languages, there's a distinction between abstractions the language designer can add and those the programmer can; in Lisp, there is not.
If most languages didn't have
iforclass, you couldn't add them in a library; you'd have to modify the interpreter or compiler. Here'sifdefined in a Lisp-like language I'm working on:This is possible because Lisp code is made of Lisp data structures which it can easily manipulate, and because it has the ability to control when evaluation occurs. Here, we need to splice three blocks of code into a
condexpression, which is a more generalized form of conditional evaluation that takes an unlimited number of test/then pairs. We must also prevent the premature evaluation of the branch not chosen, which is whyifandcondcan't be regular functions. In Common Lisp, the entire object system can be implemented as a library.Haskell and similar languages also offer significant power for abstraction with its sophisticated type system and lazy evaluation, but the more important lesson they can teach is the gurantees they can make at compile time. Once a Haskell program compiles, it has a much greater chance to work as expected than any other language I've used.
SQL teaches thinking in data. Most programs exist to store and manipulate data, so that's pretty relevant.
Sure, but many languages do that, see my answer below. I just personally wouldn't recommend either lisp or haskell to someone learning how to program. There are more modern and better ways, IMO.
I wrote several paragraphs and talked about three languages, so I'm going to have to guess about what "that" refers to. I'm guessing it's Lisp macros. Your other comment offers template metaprogramming in C++ as an alternative.
Template metaprogramming Gets maybe a third of the way to what Lisp macros offer. It can do compile-time syntax transformations, but it doesn't provide the full C++ language with which to do so, doesn't operate on the actual parse tree, and isn't Turing-complete in practice because of fixed limits on recursion depth in real compilers. Rust macros get much closer, providing the full power of Rust and the option to get at a real AST by parsing the token stream they operate on.
If you mean something else, please elaborate. It's an interesting topic.
I'm not sure what "more modern" means in this context. If it just means young, I can probably find a Lisp family language with its first release this year, though that wouldn't be the one I would recommend to a beginner. If it means recently-updated, Racket, the Lisp I recommended learning had its latest stable release nine days ago. If it means something else, please say so.
"Better" probably can't be measured objectively, but by all means, make the case for something else.