Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
2009/11/13 Moritz Wilhelmy c...@wzff.de: In lisp, the macros are part of the language and don't hide anything. The syntax itself is lisp, with all it's parentheses. I'm only going by what Dimitry Maluka was suggesting in his e-mail. I don't see the point of writing complex macros to subdue a language to my taste, when I could just as easily use another language. 2009/11/13 Dmitry Maluka dmitrymal...@gmail.com: Please don't say a language is poorly designed if you don't know that language. Please don't fallaciously assume I don't know anything just because I'm criticizing a Language you're fanatical about. The problem is that no language can anticipate any your need. And then you are forced to go and write ugly C macros or something similar. I agree, no language can directly accommodate all needs, but if I find my self wanting to write ugly macros to do something, I find a better way of achieving what I need. C is far from perfect, but I find it nice enough to do the majority of things painlessly. Yes. Bad books on programming treat Lisp as a functional programming language with list as the only data structure but it isn't. Nobody said lists were Lisp's only data structure, but an inherent feature of Lisp is that it treats things like a list: The name LISP derives from LISt Processing. Linked lists are one of Lisp languages' major data structures, and Lisp source code is itself made up of lists. As a result, Lisp programs can manipulate source code as a data structure, giving rise to the macro systems that allow programmers to create new syntax or even new domain-specific programming languages embedded in Lisp. So you're telling me bad books describe Lisp as it was designed? Granted that's taken from the Wikipedia article, but I can't find any article that disputes that definition. Its primary concept is the transparency of the program's abstract syntax tree (due to the syntax simplicity). Tell me, how is that beneficial?
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
Hello, On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 04:22:48PM +, Aled Gest wrote: Please don't fallaciously assume I don't know anything just because I'm criticizing a Language you're fanatical about. I agree, no language can directly accommodate all needs, but if I find my self wanting to write ugly macros to do something, I find a better way of achieving what I need. C is far from perfect, but I find it nice enough to do the majority of things painlessly. Its primary concept is the transparency of the program's abstract syntax tree (due to the syntax simplicity). Tell me, how is that beneficial? please stop posting thx - Mate
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
2009/11/13 Mate Nagy mn...@port70.net: please stop posting Why?
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
Aled Gest dixit (2009-11-13, 16:27): 2009/11/13 Mate Nagy mn...@port70.net: please stop posting Why? It's getting very much off topic. If you would care for a pleasant (really) weekend with Lisp, try installing SBCL (a popular Common Lisp implementation) on your OS and have a look at Peter Seibel's great introductory (and more) book on Common Lisp: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ Go through chapter 3, it should pretty much already explain a lot of good stuff in (Common) Lisp. You might get to like it by then, it's practical, non-religious and gets into interesting stuff pretty quick. Or if you'll still not give a shit about it, you'll at least have some good arguments at hand :). Best, -- [a]
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
2009/11/13 Antoni Grzymala ant...@chopin.edu.pl: It's getting very much off topic. That's why it's marked with [OT], and that's why I moved it out of the Go thread. I suspect the objection is more to do with people not liking to hear criticism about things they're fond of. If you would care for a pleasant (really) weekend with Lisp, try installing SBCL (a popular Common Lisp implementation) on your OS and have a look at Peter Seibel's great introductory (and more) book on Common Lisp: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ I installed clisp on my BSD box the day before, don't know how that compares to SBCL, but I'll give that guide a go, thanks for the heads up!
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
I don't see the point of writing complex macros to subdue a language to my taste, when I could just as easily use another language. Why not try Lisp as another language? Macros are not necessarily kludges (though C macros are). They are a tool for code simplification and decomposition. Another tool is functions. Functions are called, macros are expanded. Please don't fallaciously assume I don't know anything just because I'm criticizing a Language you're fanatical about. I'm not. I just indicated that you criticize it blindly. Sorry if I offended you. Its primary concept is the transparency of the program's abstract syntax tree (due to the syntax simplicity). Tell me, how is that beneficial? Metaprogramming. Now, let's stop this discussion. Or we can continue it under the perspective of improving the C preprocessor, that's an interesting subject.
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:43:40AM +0200, Dmitry Maluka wrote: Now, let's stop this discussion. Or we can continue it under the perspective of improving the C preprocessor, that's an interesting subject. +1
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Mate Nagy wrote: please stop posting Please don't. I for one find this discussion somewhat interesting, not the least for the effort to exchange logically sound argumets. It's a refreshing alternative to the empty and useless mud-slinging that all too often kills conversation. It can be useful to return to first principles rather than seeking refuge in the false security of consensus. No idea is better than the strongest critisism it has levelled and the best evidence that one knows something lies in being able to explain it to others. Much of the discussion here, off-topic and on, is interesting. Sometimes peoples' attitudes even make them enjoyable. Have a good weekend, Martin
Re: [dev] [OT]: Lisp
Aled Gest dixit (2009-11-13, 21:10): If you would care for a pleasant (really) weekend with Lisp, try installing SBCL (a popular Common Lisp implementation) on your OS and have a look at Peter Seibel's great introductory (and more) book on Common Lisp: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ I installed clisp on my BSD box the day before, don't know how that compares to SBCL, but I'll give that guide a go, thanks for the heads up! SBCL seems to be the most actively developed and best supported implementation on the Linux platform, not sure about BSD. Clisp is possibly the most portable. A pretty up to date comparison is available here: http://common-lisp.net/~dlw/LispSurvey.html Best, -- [a]
