On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 23:31 -0700, Brian Harvey wrote:
> I don't subscribe to the Lisp-as-ball-of-mud view. I think Lisp is
> jewel-like, too, and what that means is that it takes one central good
> idea and runs with it.
> Pascal ... has a special place of dishonor ... because it thinks it knows
> what's good for you, better than you know.
> Back then I felt very strongly, and even now I feel somewhat, that the
> central new concern of R5, hygienic macros, was a case of someone thinking
> they know what's good for me.
I agree with you. This is a succinct explanation of my views.
It is possible to write bad code in any language. The more effort
someone wastes trying to make it hard to write bad code, the worse
the bad code becomes.
A good language designer makes it easy and simple to write good code.
If that also makes it easy and simple to write bad code, then at
least the bad code will be simply written and, bugs and all, simple
to understand.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
