Re: Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- From: "eric-and-jane-smith" <noreply@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:59:20 GMT
Elena <egarrulo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:8eaa84c8-bad3-4557-a9e4-
07fb5665817f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
you have been bothered by some issues in Common Lisp and have
developed a workaround for them.
Everyone develops their own version of Common Lisp, and their own
programming style. E.g. where someone else might say (compose #'not
#'null) I say (cf not not) and where someone else might use mvb to mean
multiple-value-bind, I use mbind, because I also use other binds such as
dbind and tbind, and they're easier to remember as a group, and to
recognize at a glance. Whoever uses mvb will say it's better because
it's shorter, but I used assembler language for a long time before Lisp,
and mvb to me means to move a byte.
From my point of view, Common Lisp is a foundation for developing yourown personal perfect programming language. Whatever combination of
language features works best for you. Or if you're a group of
programmers working together, whatever combination of features works best
for the group. But generally groups of programmers are not needed with
such a productive programming language. If you have a meeting of
programmers discussing what changes to make to a program, one programmer
could have been making those changes during that meeting, so the time
spent by everyone who attended the meeting was mostly wasted. Common
Lisp is the kind of programming language where it's better to just do the
work instead of talking about it, because it can get done sooner than it
can get talked about.
People ask why there seems to be little demand for Common Lisp
programmers. But that's like asking why there is little demand for
elevator riders. Obviously, if you're supposed to attend a meeting on
the top floor, you should be an elevator rider, but it wouldn't be a good
idea to mention that in your resume/cv. If your boss wants to ride the
elevator, he can do it himself, with no help from you. Common Lisp
programmers don't usually hire other Common Lisp programmers, because
they can do the work themselves more easily than they can assign it to
other programmers.
The "issues" you're concerned about, such as inconsistent naming style,
inconsistent argument order, etc., are very superficial. Everyone who
wants to solve those problems will have their own preference of solution.
Someone with a personality like Monk might take a long time, getting
everything perfect before proceeding. But another Monk might disagree
and spend even more time correcting those corrections. Other people,
with more common sense, would proceed doing their real work at full
speed, and would make whatever minor changes whenever convenient. No
matter how big your program gets, it's never hard to edit it to make that
kind of change, if you use a decent editor and have decent editing
skills.
.
- References:
- Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- From: Elena
- Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- Prev by Date: Re: Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- Next by Date: Re: Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- Previous by thread: Re: Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- Next by thread: Re: Common Lisp's fixable issues?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
