Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: keke@xxxxxxx (Takehiko Abe)
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:47:14 +0900
what about
(+ (* 1 2 3) (/ 4 5 6))
vs
((1 * 2 * 3) + (4 / 5 / 6))
Yes, but
i) In my experience in science those constructs are unusual. Mixed
operators sequences are more usual and in practice simplification of
prefix notation is not noted.
ii) I tend to think in terms of binary operations and then something as
(* 1 2 3)
looks "non-mathematical". I would prefer
(* * 1 2 3)
Ah. I guess Lisp is not for you then.
I think that either you like it or you hate it on the first
sight. Do not try too hard. It's futile.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Wolfram Fenske
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- References:
- Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Takehiko Abe
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Prev by Date: Re: memory usage in cmucl
- Next by Date: Re: memory usage in cmucl
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Next by thread: Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Index(es):