Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
- From: Pascal Bourguignon <pjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 00:21:50 +0200
Pascal Costanza <pc@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I mostly agree with your assessment. But note that a functional
programming style is somewhat more convenient with a Lisp-1. It's
easier to express things like (((f x) y) z) whereas in a Lisp-2 you
would have to say (funcall (funcall (f x) y) z). So if you have a
strong preference for functional programming (or would like to explore
it more deeply) you might want to try out a Lisp-1 (i.e., Scheme).
I would note that it's hard to know what's going on when you have
expressions that start with several parentheses. How many?
Perhaps it's only that I'm used to lisp-2, but after that recent HtDP
exercise, I find (((f x) y) z) _less_ readable
than: (funcall (funcall (f x) y) z)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the
consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to
exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.
.
- References:
- Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
- From: JesusWaffle
- Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
- Prev by Date: Re: Just can't hear enough about Cells?
- Next by Date: Re: Just can't hear enough about Cells?
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
- Next by thread: Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
