Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:14:26 +0200
Jon Harrop wrote:
Joe Marshall wrote:Infix parsers are rarely used for several reasons. The increase in incompatibility is one reason, but there are others:
Infix macros are *hard*.
Do you mean it is difficult to implement infix in Lisp?
No, others mentioned that *there are* infix parsers (reader macros) for Lisp. Most people don't use them I guess :D
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).
So Lisp is rather tied to the built-in prefix notation.
Not at all. Implement whatever syntax you want. If you don't like Lisp syntax at all use a complete, different syntax (and language) like Dylan.
(consider the popularity of ternary ? : operator).
I used to use that a fair bit. Are you saying it is popular or unpopular?
It's not exactly elegant IMHO. I MUCH prefer Lisp's style of everything being an expression, so I can simply say (if (test bla) foo bar) *everywhere* I want, unlike C, which makes that stupid if-else/?: distinction (and both look ugly, and if-else requires ();{}s all over the place).
Languages drift. And as I mentioned before, bandwidth and error correction are importand factors.
Do you think that syntax is a significant source of errors when programming? I believe that my errors tend to be at higher levels, e.g. algorithms.
True, an experienced C coder probably doesn't make syntax mistakes, or just ()s the code to be sure. But I feel like in a straight-jacket when coding C. Not because of memory management, but because of syntax (like the inability to use if and switch as an expression, the need to create a named function in order to pass it as a parameter, the awkward syntax for creating structures that I want to pass as arguments...).
-- I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it. Dogbert .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- References:
- Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- 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
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Joe Marshall
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Very poor Lisp performance
- Prev by Date: Re: Ray tracer in Stalin
- 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
|