Related
Paul Graham writes:
For example, types seem to be an
inexhaustible source of research
papers, despite the fact that static
typing seems to preclude true macros--
without which, in my opinion, no
language is worth using.
What's the big deal with macros? I haven't spent a whole lot of time with them, but from the legacy C/C++ I've worked with they appear to be mostly used as a hack before templates/generics existed.
It's hard to imagine that
DECLARELIST(StrList, string);
StrList slist;
is somehow preferable to
List<String> slist;
Am I missing something?
Then there's the usage as a pseudo-function, like MAKEPOINTS:
POINTS MAKEPOINTS(
DWORD dwValue
);
Why not define it as a function instead? Is this some optimization, where you avoid code duplication without having the added overhead of another stack frame?
Then there's also tricky control flow things involving GOTO, which seem to be of dubious value.
What's so great about macros? They're less type safe (in C and C++) (right?). Why won't Paul Graham program without them?
LISP macros are an entirely different beast. C/C++ macros can merely replace a piece of text with abother piece of text using an extremely basic language. Whereas a LISP program is (after "reading") is a LISP data structure and can therefore be manipulated using the whole language.
With such macros, you could (given you're a really clever hacker) vastly extend the language and everybody could use it relatively easily, since you did it with macros. Take for example the the Common Lisp Object System. At its core, the language has nothing even remotely like objects. It is entirely implemented in the language itself, including a relatively simple syntax for use - using macros.
Of course macros are less necessary when the language has most things you'd every want built-in. OTOH, the LISP fans are of the opinion that a sufficiently simple language (LISP) with sufficiently powerful metaprogramming capabilities (macros) is better since new concepts can be incorporated into the language without changing the spec or working implementations. But the most compelling example for macro usage is the DSL area. Ruby on Rails and others show every day how useful DSLs can be. Yes, Ruby doesn't have macros, it just exploits how much Ruby syntax can be bent. In other languages, or when even Ruby's syntax isn't flexible enough, you need macros or a fully-blown parser/interpreter to implement a complex DSL.
Macros are really only good for two things in C/C++, and should generally be the tool of last resort (if you can accomplish something without using macros, do so).
Creating new syntactic structures or abstractions that do not exist in the language.
Eliminating duplication, especially between things that must be in sync with each other.
It's almost never to use a macro as a function.
You also have to realize that LISP macros are not C/C++ macros.
I've learned enough Common Lisp to be able to muddle my way through writing an application. I've read Seibel's Practical Common Lisp
What libraries or programs should I be reading to understand the idioms, the Tao, of Common Lisp?
CL-PPCRE is often cited as a good example, for good reason. Actually, probably any of Edi Weitz's libraries will make good reading, but CL-PPCRE is particularly clever and it's a useful and impressive library. Beyond that a lot of CL implementations are written mostly in CL. It can be pretty productive to pick some part of CL that's usually implemented in CL and compare how different implementations handle it. In particular, some of the best examples of large useful macro systems are implementations of things in the standard. Loop is an interesting read, or if you're really ambitious you could compare a few implementations of CLOS.
If there's some area of computing you are particularly interested in it might be worth mentioning that, so people can tailor recommendations to that.
It's another book, so it may not be precisely what you're looking for, but Peter Norvig's Paradigms in Artificial Intelligence Programming contains a lot of well-written, smallish Common Lisp programs. It's not perfectly natural code, especially in the the first few chapters, because, like code in Practical Common Lisp, it focuses on teaching you how to program in CL, but it's still very much worth a read. It also contains some excellent examples of ways you can build other languages on top of Common Lisp, and it has some valuable advice on how to improve the performance of CL programs.
The other recommendations (PAIP and CL-PPCRE) are excellent. I would also suggest becoming acquainted with Alexandria's code and also taking a look at GBBopen.
The Art of the Metaobject Protocol - is a book with the most beautiful code ever written.
LISP (Lisp In Small Pieces) is a neat book; shows clossette (small obect system) and
some compiler stuff. Without doubt, Norvig's book is awesome.
I really like "Building Problem Solvers" as well but the code is a bit rough. I'm not
used to binding dynamic-scoped variables in the parameter list. But it made for much fun
improvements trying to "pre-compile" the discrimination net. This book gives another
approaches to some of Norvig's code; I still think that Norvig's code
is much "neater and cleaner" code (easier to read and understand, and still creative).
"Building Problem Solvers" should come with a warning label like "you're gonna need some
aspiren (sp). It felt like a bolt of lightning struck me in the head when I finally
"understood" rms and Sussmans' dependency directed backtracking. Compiling the pdis
was also brilliant. Excellent stuff. I just wish I could remember it all ...
I like the SBCL code.
The only thing I would offer is to program. That is what I did.
I did two things. One I tackled a problem that i was familiar with, a unit testing framework and expanded it to include test suites. To get an understanding of macro writing.
The second thing I did was play around with basic objects in CL. Macros, closures, and style.
Also don't forget about getting feedback from Lispers about your code.
(defun ugly-lisp-code? () ())
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
To begin, not only are there two main dialects of the language (Common Lisp and Scheme), but each of the dialects has many individual implementations. For example, Chicken Scheme, Bigloo, etc... each with slight differences.
From a modern point of view this is strange, as languages these days tend to have definitive implementations/specs. Think Java, C#, Python, Ruby, etc, where each has a single definitive site you can go to for API docs, downloads, and such. Of course Lisp predates all of these languages. But then again, even C/C++ are standardized (more or less).
Is the fragmentation of this community due to the age of Lisp? Or perhaps different implementations/dialects are intended to solve different problems? I understand there are good reasons why Lisp will never be as united as languages that have grown up around a single definitive implementation, but at this point is there any good reason why the Lisp community should not move in this direction?
The Lisp community is fragmented, but everything else is too.
Why are there so many Linux distributions?
Why are there so many BSD variants? OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, ... even Mac OS X.
Why are there so many scripting languages? Ruby, Python, Rebol, TCL, PHP, and countless others.
Why are there so many Unix shells? sh, csh, bash, ksh, ...?
Why are there so many implementations of Logo (>100), Basic (>100), C (countless), ...
Why are there so many variants of Ruby? Ruby MRI, JRuby, YARV, MacRuby, HotRuby?
Python may have a main site, but there are several slightly different implementations: CPython, IronPython, Jython, Python for S60, PyPy, Unladen Swallow, CL-Python, ...
Why is there C (Clang, GCC, MSVC, Turbo C, Watcom C, ...), C++, C#, Cilk, Objective-C, D, BCPL, ... ?
Just let some of them get fifty and see how many dialects and implementations it has then.
I guess Lisp is diverse, because every language is diverse or gets diverse. Some start with a single implementation (McCarthy's Lisp) and after fifty years you got a zoo. Common Lisp even started with multiple implementations (for different machine types, operating systems, with different compiler technology, ...).
Nowadays Lisp is a family of languages, not a single language. There is not even consensus what languages belong to that family or not. There might be some criteria to check (s-expressions, functions, lists, ...), but not every Lisp dialect supports all these criteria. The language designers have experimented with different features and we got many, more or less, Lisp-like languages.
If you look at Common Lisp, there are about three or four different active commercial vendors. Try to get them behind one offering! Won't work. Then you have a bunch of active open source implementations with different goals: one compiles to C, another one is written in C, one tries to have a fast optimizing compiler, one tries to have some middlle ground with native compilation, one is targeting the JVM ... and so on. Try to tell the maintainers to drop their implementations!
Scheme has around 100 implementations. Many are dead, or mostly dead. At least ten to twenty are active. Some are hobby projects. Some are university projects, some are projects by companies. The users have diverse needs. One needs a real-time GC for a game, another one needs embedding in C, one needs only barebones constructs for educational purposes, and so on. How to tell the developers to keep from hacking their implementation.
Then there are some who don't like Commmon Lisp (too big, too old, not functional enough, not object oriented enough, too fast, not fast enough, ...). Some don't like Scheme (too academic, too small, does not scale, too functional, not functional enough, no modules, the wrong modules, not the right macros, ...).
Then somebody needs a Lisp combined with Objective-C, then you get Nu. Somebody hacks some Lisp for .net. Then you get some Lisp with concurrency and fresh ideas, then you have Clojure.
It's language evolution at work. It is like the cambrian explosion (when lots of new animals appeared). Some will die, others will live on, some new will appear. At some point in time some dialects appear that pick up the state of art (Scheme for everything with functional programming in Lisp in the 70s/80s and Common Lisp for everything MacLisp-like in the 80s) - that causes some dialects to disappear mostly (namely Standard Lisp, InterLisp, and others).
Common Lisp is the alligator of Lisp dialects. It is a very old design (hundred million years) with little changes, looks a little bit frightening, and from time to time it eats some young...
If you want to know more, The Evolution of Lisp (and the corresponding slides) is a very good start!
I think it is because "Lisp" is such a broad description of a language. The only common thing between all the lisps that I know is most things are in brackets, and uses prefix function notation. Eg
(fun (+ 3 4))
However nearly everything else can vary between implementations. Scheme and CL are completely different languages, and should be considered like that.
I think calling the lisp community fragmented is like calling the "C like" community fragmented. It has c,c++,d,java,c#, go, javascript, python and many other languages which I can't think of.
In summary: Lisp is more of a language property (like garbage collection, static typing) than an actual language implementation, so it is completely normal that there are many languages that have the Lisp like property, just like many languages have garbage collection.
I think it's because Lisp was born out of, and maintains the spirit of the hacker culture. The hacker culture is to to take something and make it "better" according to your belief in "better".
So when you have a bunch of opinionated hackers and a culture of modification, fragmentation happens. You get Scheme, Common Lisp, ELISP, Arc. These are all pretty different languages, but they're all "Lisp" at the same time.
Now why is the community fragmented? Well, I'll blame time and maturity on that. The language is 50 years old! :-)
Scheme and Common Lisp are standardized. SBCL seems like the defacto open source lisp and there are plenty of examples out there on how to use it. It's fast and free. ClozureCL also looks pretty darn good.
PLT Scheme seems like the defacto open source scheme and there are plenty of examples out there how to use it. It's fast and free.
The CL HyperSpec seems as good as the JavaDoc to me.
As far as community fragmentation I think this has little to standards or resources. I think this has far more to do with what has been a relatively small community until recently.
Clojure I think has a good chance to become The Lisp for the new generation of coders.
Perhaps my point is a very popular implementation is all that is required to give the illusion of a cohesive community.
LISP is not nearly as fragmented as BASIC.
There are so many dialects and versions of BASIC out there I have lost count.
Even the most commonly used implementation (MS VB) is different between versions.
The fact that there are many implementations of Common LISP should be considered a good thing. In fact, given that there are roughly the same number of free implementations of Common LISP as there are free implementations of C++ is remarkable, considering the relative popularity of the languages.
Free Common LISP implementations include CMU CL, SBCL, OpenMCL / Clozure CL, CLISP, GCL and ECL.
Free C++ implementations include G++ (with Cygwin and MinGW32 variants), Digital Mars, Open Watcom, Borland C++ (legacy?) and CINT (interpreter). There are also various STL implementations for C++.
With regards to Scheme and Common LISP, although admittedly, an inaccurate analogy, there are times when I would consider Scheme is to Common LISP what C is to C++, i.e. while Scheme and C are small and elegant, Common LISP and C++ are large and (arguably) more suited for larger applications.
Having many implementations is beneficial, because each implementation is optimal in unique places. And modern mainstream languages don't have one implementation anyway. Think about Python: its main implementation is CPython, but thanks to JPython you can run Python on the JVM too; thanks to Stackless Python you can have massive concurrency thanks to microthreads; etc. Such implementations will be encompatible in some ways: JPython integrates seamlessly with Java, whilst CPython doesn't. Same for Ruby.
What you don't want is having many implementations which are incompatible to the bone. That's the case with Scheme, where you can't share libraries among implementations without rewriting a lot of code, because Schemers can't agree on how to import/export libraries. Common Lisp libraries, OTOH, because of standardization in core areas, are more likely to be portable, and facilities exist to conditionally write code handling each implementation's peculiarities. Actually, nowadays you may say that Common Lisp is defined by its implementations (think about the ASDF package installation library), just like mainstream languages.
Two possible contributing factors:
Lisp languages aren't hugely popular in comparison to other languages like C/C++/Ruby and so on - that alone may give the illusion of a fragmented community. There may be equal fragmentation in the other language-communities, but a larger community will have larger fragments..
Lisp languages are easier than most to implement. I've seen many, many "toy" Lisp implementations people have made for fun, many "proper" Lisp implementations to solve specific tasks. There are far more Lisp implementations than there are, say, Python interpreters (I'm aware of about.. 5, most of which are generally interchangeable)
There are promising projects like Clojure, which is a new language, with a clear goal (concurrency), without much "historical baggage", easy to install/setup, can piggyback on Java's library "ecosystem", has a good site with documentation/libraries, and has an official mailing list. This pretty much checks off every issue I encountered while trying to learn Common Lisp a while ago, and encourages a more centralised community.
My point of view is that Lisp is a small language so it is easy to implement (compare to Java, C#, C, ...).
Note: As many comment that it is indeed not that small it miss my point. Let me try to be more precise: This boll down to the entry point price. Building a VM that compile some well know mainstream language is quit hard compare to building a VM that deal with LISP. This would then make it easy to build small community around a small project. Now the library and spec may or may not be fully implemented but the value proposition is still there. Closure it a typical example where the R5RS is certainly not in the scope.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I picked up a LISP book at a garage sale the other day and was just wondering if it was worth spending some time on.
Yes. I'll stick to Common Lisp, here, though Scheme is also a superb language that has a lot to recommend it.
In Common Lisp, you have a largish multi-paradigm language that provides some things that either don't exist widely outside the Lisp family of languages, or are limited to CL and even more obscure/niche languages.
The first feature, which you can get in one way or another from CL, Scheme and quite a few other dialects, is a real macro system.
I say "real" because the system is much more complete, flexible and reliable than, say, C preprocessor macros. It's extremely difficult to get CPP macros to do even simple things (like swapping the values of two variables, or making a foreach construct) in a reliable fashion, but these are trivial with Lisp macros. This turns out to be a very powerful tool for introducing new abstractions and dispensing with "boilerplate" code.
The second feature, which is effectively limited to Common Lisp, is CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System. Despite the name, it's not a conventional OO system like that of Java with methods being part of a class's definition. Instead, it provides polymorphism through "generic functions" which are what methods are attached to, and by default allow you to do multiple dispatch.
I vastly prefer CLOS to the more usual approach to object orientation, as it makes a number of "patterns" (like the Visitor pattern) completely unneccessary and because extension of existing generic functions is so easy; others loathe it because it takes an extremely cavalier approach to encapsulation and because extension of generic functions becomes arguably too easy. Either way, CLOS is different enough that I think it's worth learning just for the different perspective it provides.
The third feature, which is available outside of Lisp but still fantastic if you've never experienced it before is dynamic, interactive programming. CL debuggers tend to be extremely powerful tools, and CL provides for dynamic definition and redefinition of functions, classes and methods, all of which dramatically improves one's ability to explore a problem, test solutions of that problem and its subproblems, and finally put together a program that works correctly and efficiently.
Lastly, for a lot of classes of problems, Lisp is a great practical language. It provides good performance (usually not as fast as C, but dramatically faster than most "scripting languages"), safety, automatic memory management, a decent "standard library" of functions and tremendous opportnities for easy extension.
It is worth learning for "mind-expansion" purposes but not so popular for building apps these days.
However, it is powerful, and mature, and there are fast and free compilers out there. So there is no reason not to choose it for a program if you like.
The way in which Lisp treats data structures and program structures the same offers amazing power which is worth understanding.
Its history is fascinating and it has shaped the world of computer science.
Be sure to check out Ableson and Sussman's Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs at MIT OpenCourseware
Clojure: a Lisp on .NET and Java VMs
GNU CLISP.
CMU Common Lisp
Depends on the book. Which book?
Common Lisp is worth learning today because it's one of the few languages that pretty much "does everything". If there's some mainstream or obscure programming idiom or technique, odds are Common Lisp has it already in some form. About the only thing CL lacks is continuations (many argue it doesn't need them, but that's not helpful if you want to explore them).
Anyone spending any serious time writing in Common Lisp will come out Changed in some way, typically for the better, IMHO.
Even if you can't carry all of the Lispy concepts you learn and use in to other environments, knowing about them and how they work is still useful.
Good programmers expose themselves to as many different programming paradigms as they can - not as many programming languages as they can.
The LISP family (there are several variants) is very worth while getting to know. Your objective should be getting your head wraped around functional programming and the lambda calculus - the paradigm that LISP is based on. Focus less on becomming an "ace" LISP programmer (that could take years).
If you find functional programming "flips your switch", try having a look at PROLOG too - here the paradigm is based on evaluation of Horn Clauses (predicate logic).
I may have spent the last 20 years earning a living as a COBOL programmer (OMG - they still have those!), but I think I am a better programmer because of the time spent learning what LISP, and a number of other programming languages were really all about.
Have a blast...
Here's a Google Tech talk worth watching about a company currently producing large, complex software for the airline industry in Common Lisp:
Lisp for High-Performance Transaction Processing (The video is now unavailable. Here's some note by Zach Beane.)
Other topics are mentioned in that video, including Clojure, a new variant of Lisp for the JVM (some work is now being done to develop Clojure for the CLR too, but that is not as far along), which is worth checking out for the way it addresses concurrency issues. See the Clojure site at:
http://clojure.org/
and, in particular at first, check out the link in the upper right on that page to some excellent Screencasts with overviews of the concurrency issues and Clojure features.
If you get interested in Lisp, and the book you found is not that great (I have an old one myself that didn't do much for me), Paul Graham's book On Lisp is available free at http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html and is very good. The general Lisp idea is the same for Common Lisp or Scheme or Emacs Lisp or Clojure, but the specifics will be different - so keep that in mind if reading Graham's book, which focuses mostly on Common Lisp (with some mentions of Scheme specifics.) On Lisp is probably not the best beginner book, but it's worth going through it and just skimming over specifics you're not ready to follow in detail yet to see what is there, particularly with regard to macros, which On Lisp really explores.
One benefit of Lisp is that you develop an appreciation for prefix and wonder why everyone else in the world doesn't us it too (like with Latex or vim)
+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
is much easier to code/edit/paste than
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9
See this question, and especially the third answer, the one that explains that Lisp is good for solving complicated problems, those problems that are hard to decompose into more manageable modules if you were to try to solve them in another language. In other words, if you are keen on exploring ways to solve convoluted problems, that involve, let's say Natural Language Processing, or Knowledge Aggregation... then, yes, Lisp might just be useful to you.
Learn lisp to learn about macros, and that code is data, and to learn that you can reach enlightenment w/o the self-flagellation of C++.
Learn Common Lisp to learn about reader macros and compiler macros. I don't know any other language that has them.
Learn scheme for continuations.
Learn Clojure because it's going to make Java obsolete :-)
It (Common Lisp) is still heavily used by academics working in Artificial Intelligence. Scheme is a Lisp-like language used by many (most?) CS departments as well. Personally I think learning Lisp is worthwhile whether or not you end up using it. It's a classic language that we've learned a great deal from over time.
Learning LISP is a good way to learn functional programming effectively, and is often used as an introductory language for undergraduate students. Many people feel that Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, which uses the Scheme dialect of Lisp, is a book that should be on every programmers shelf.
Paul Graham has been a big proponent of Lisp, and in his book, Hackers and Painters, he describes how he used the power of Lisp to dominate the competition in creating ViaWeb for Yahoo Stores.
Elsewhere, I've seen Lisp dialects used prominently in the aerospace industry, as scripting tools for integration frameworks like Comet, and AML. Lisp will always be tied to the early AI experiments in the 1950's.
As other have alluded to, Lisp isn't that popular anymore for general programming, and it definitely (IMO) has some major problems for writing real systems in, but of course others disagree (for instance much of ITA's software is written in Lisp, and they make crazy bank).
Even if you never write a 'real' program in Lisp, it is absolutely worth learning. There are many programming techniques originally pioneered in Lisp that, knowing them, will help you write better code in Python, Perl, Ruby, ML, Haskell, and even C++. For instance, check out Higher Order Perl, which shows how to do all kinds of amazing tricks in Perl; to quote the introduction "Instead of telling you how wonderful Lisp is, I will tell you how wonderful Perl is, and in the end you will not have to know any Lisp, but you will know a lot more about Perl. [...] Then you can stop writing C programs in Perl. I think you will find it to be a nice change. Perl is much better at being Perl than it is at being a slow version of C."
And there are some great books out there that use Lisp, and it will be easier to understand them if you know the language - SICP, Norvig's Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming, and The Reasoned Schemer all come to mind as must-reads.
Some people here are recommending Clojure. While I would say that Lisp in general is good, I would caution against Clojure, at least for beginners. This is not out of any difficulty using Clojure, just in the fact that Clojure is gratuitously inconsistent with Common Lisp and Scheme. If you want JVM integration, use Armed Bear Common Lisp: https://common-lisp.net/project/armedbear/ , though for general use, I would recommend Steel Bank Common Lisp: http://www.sbcl.org/
This is like questioning if "it's worth to learn C these days of web programming?". Only you can decide if it's worth. What you have to ask yourself is: what am I trying to achieve reading the book?
Learning new languages sometimes aren't useful in the practical sense of things (maybe you're aren't going to use LISP ever in your life), but in the long term it's going to be useful because of the knowledge acquired by different paradigms you aren't too familiar with - and you could use some of you learned in what you already use today.
It's been awhile since university, but after I took a 3rd year CS course that required learning Lisp and writing Lisp programs, writing and thinking recursively was a snap. Not that I had problems with recursion before the course, but afterwards, it was 2nd nature. I also used CLOS in the course (University of Toronto), but it was so long ago, I barely remember what I did.
I was working with a Lisp dialect but also learning some Haskell as well. They share some similarities but the main difference in Common Lisp seems to be that you don't have to define a type for each function, argument, etc. whereas in Haskell you do. Also, Haskell is mostly a compiled language. Run the compiler to generate the executable.
My question is this, are there different applications or uses where a language like Haskell may make more sense than a more dynamic language like Common Lisp. For example, it seems that Lisp could be used for more bottom programming, like in building websites or GUIs, where Haskell could be used where compile time checks are more needed like in building TCP/IP servers or code parsers.
Popular Lisp applications:
Emacs
Popular Haskell applications:
PUGS
Darcs
Do you agree, and are there any studies on this?
Programming languages are tools for thinking with. You can express any program in any language, if you're willing to work hard enough. The chief value provided by one programming language over another is how much support it gives you for thinking about problems in different ways.
For example, Haskell is a language that emphasizes thinking about your problem in terms of types. If there's a convenient way to express your problem in terms of Haskell's data types, you'll probably find that it's a convenient language to write your program in.
Common Lisp's strengths (which are numerous) lie in its dynamic nature and its homoiconicity (that is, Lisp programs are very easy to represent and manipulate as Lisp data) -- Lisp is a "programmable programming language". If your program is most easily expressed in a new domain-specific language, for example, Lisp makes it very easy to do that. Lisp (and other dynamic languages) are a good fit if your problem description deals with data whose type is poorly specified or might change as development progresses.
Language choice is often as much an aesthetic decision as anything. If your project requirements don't limit you to specific languages for compatibility, dependency, or performance reasons, you might as well pick the one you feel the best about.
You're opening multiple cans of very wriggly worms. First off, the whole strongly vs weakly typed languages can. Second, the functional vs imperative language can.
(Actually, I'm curious: by "lisp dialect" do you mean Clojure by any chance? Because it's largely functional and closer in some ways to Haskell.)
Okay, so. First off, you can write pretty much any program in pretty much any normal language, with more or less effort. The purported advantage to strong typing is that a large class of errors can be detected at compile time. On the other hand, less typeful languages can be easier to code in. Common Lisp is interesting because it's a dynamic language with the option of declaring and using stronger types, which gives the CL compiler hints on how to optimize. (Oh, and real Common Lisp is usually implemented with a compiler, giving you the option of compiling or sticking with interpreted code.)
There are a number of studies about comparing untyped, weakly typed, and strongly typed languages. These studies invariably either say one of them is better, or say there's no observable difference. There is, however, little agreement among the studies.
The biggest area in which there may be some clear advantage is in dealing with complicated specifications for mathematical problems. In those cases (cryptographic algorithms are one example) a functional language like Haskell has advantages because it is easier to verify the correspondence between the Haskell code and the underlying algorithm.
I come mostly from a Common Lisp perspective, and as far as I can see, Common Lisp is suited for any application.
Yes, the default is dynamic typing (i.e. type detection at runtime), but you can declare types anyway for optimization (as a side note for other readers: CL is strongly typed; don't confuse weak/strong with static/dynamic!).
I could imagine that Haskell could be a bit better suited as a replacement for Ada in the avionics sector, since it forces at least all type checks at compile time.
I do not see how CL should not be as useful as Haskell for TCP/IP servers or code parsers -- rather the opposite, but my contacts with Haskell have been brief so far.
Haskell is a pure functional language. While it does allow imperative constructs (using monads), it generally forces the programmer to think the problem in a rather different way, using a more mathematical-oriented approach. You can't reassign another value to a variable, for example.
It is claimed that this reduces the probability of making some types of mistakes. Moreover, programs written in Haskell tend to be shorter and more concise than those written in typical programming languages. Haskell also makes heavy use of non-strict, lazy evaluation, which could theoretically allow the compiler to make optimizations not otherwise possible (along with the no-side-effects paradigm).
Since you asked about it, I believe Haskell's typing system is quite nice and useful. Not only it catches common errors, but it can also make code more concise (!) and can effectively replace object-oriented constructs from common OO languages.
Some Haskell development kits, like GHC, also feature interactive environments.
The best use for dynamic typing that I've found is when you depend on things that you have no control over so it could as well be used dynamically. For example getting information from XML document we could do something like this:
var volume = parseXML("mydoc.xml").speaker.volume()
Not using duck typing would lead to something like this:
var volume = parseXML("mydoc.xml").getAttrib["speaker"].getAttrib["volume"].ToString()
The benefit of Haskell on the other hand is in safety. You can for example make sure, using types, that degrees in Fahrenheit and Celsius are never mixed unintentionally. Besides that I find that statically typed languages have better IDEs.