Re: PostLisp, a language experiment
From: Alexander Repenning (ralex_at_cs.colorado.edu)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: Andrei Stebakov: "Re: Executing CLisp prog on Windows"
- Previous message: Christopher Browne: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- In reply to: Ulrich Hobelmann: "[OT] PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Next in thread: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: Ulrich Hobelmann: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 11 Mar 2005 07:24:34 -0800
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> IMHO the worst thing in Lisp is its many parentheses. []
> If you want to chain several functions [..] in Lisp this looks like
(foo (bar (baz bla)))
I don't know what is causing the sudden and utterly bizarre parentheses
paranoia. The claim about Lisp using many parens is old and false. Most
popular procedural languages would require you to rewrite your
expression:
foo (bar (baz (bla ())))
8 versus 6 parens: Lisp wins!
If you look at more interesting examples don't forget to count "{" and
"}" as well ...
Alex
- Next message: Andrei Stebakov: "Re: Executing CLisp prog on Windows"
- Previous message: Christopher Browne: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- In reply to: Ulrich Hobelmann: "[OT] PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Next in thread: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: Ulrich Hobelmann: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|