Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Joe Marshall <jrm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:56:40 -0400
Jon Harrop <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I heard that infix parsers are rarely used not because infix is worse but
> because infix is unusual in Lisp code and increases incompatibility. Would
> you agree with that?
Infix parsers are rarely used for several reasons. The increase in
incompatibility is one reason, but there are others:
Infix macros are *hard*.
You need to learn the prefix notation *anyway* (because code that
operates on code needs to operate at the abstract syntax level,
which in lisp is naturally prefix-notated lists).
Infix only works well on binary operations (consider the
popularity of ternary ? : operator).
>>> There is unquestionably a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. Most
>>> natural and programming languages have complicated grammars precisely
>>> because it simplifies their use and makes them easier to understand.
>>
>> Would you please point us to evidence in this direction?
>
> Firstly, do you agree that languages are evolving to be more concise?
No.
> Secondly, do you agree that more concise languages tend to have more
> complicated grammars?
Possibly. They may simply have larger vocabularies.
> Finally, what other reason could drive this association?
Languages drift. And as I mentioned before, bandwidth and error
correction are importand factors.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- References:
- Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: M Jared Finder
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Raffael Cavallaro
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Svenne Krap
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Förster vom Silberwald
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Michael Sullivan
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Hartmann Schaffer
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jamie Border
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Christophe Rhodes
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Joe Marshall
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Tayssir John Gabbour
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Very poor Lisp performance
- Prev by Date: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Next by Date: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Next by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|