Re: How Lisp's Nested Notation Limits The Language's Utility
- From: Pillsy <pillsbury@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 May 2007 06:06:33 -0700
On May 9, 2:14 am, Jon Harrop <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
I don't think Xah's comments were specific to machine code in any way.
Essentially he is saying: is it not better to be able to write code like:
o + # d &
easily, rather than:
(lambda (x) `(+ ,o (* ,x ,d)))
If you really enjoy using that sort of syntax, it's not hard to whip
up a macro that allows you to use it in CL. Some people do exactly
that, but most people don't. I played around with it for a while
before deciding that it actually wasn't worth the trouble.
[...]
And don't you think that the advantages of being able to
easily understand what a program is doing makes it a lot
easier to attract talent to the field and to develop better
tools.
Absolutely. But don't you think most people will find it easier to
understand:
a + b*c
rather than:
(+ a (* b c))
?
I don't really care what most people will find easier to understand. I
care what I find easier to understand. I find that with infix
notations in computer languages, the choices I have are either
spending a great deal of time puzzling out precedence, or
parenthesizing everything. This is not a tremendous advantage over
Lisp.
Cheers,
Pillsy
.
- Prev by Date: Re: maximum size for EQ on natural numbers
- Next by Date: Re: How do I make this utility more flexible without losing speed?
- Previous by thread: Re: How Lisp's Nested Notation Limits The Language's Utility
- Next by thread: Re: How Lisp's Nested Notation Limits The Language's Utility
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
