Yes, I know Lisp is amazing satori, etc. But that's not the purpose of this thread. Here we list the crap things about Lisp (scheme, cl, whatever) and how we could improve it
1) Cannot produce independant binaries
2) Excessive parens can lead to an unreadable mess
3) Not much use outside of small configuration scripts
4) Not embeddable or extensible (biggest flaw yet IMO)
1) Cannot produce independant binaries
Even C requires MSVCRT or the like (Windows).
2) Excessive parens can lead to an unreadable mess
Not with pretty printing and small functions (good code practice regardless). Further note: Perl code is a mess, C is a mess, C++ is even more messy. Lisp has the most homogeneous syntax there is.
3) Not much use outside of small configuration scripts
Whuat?
4) Not embeddable or extensible (biggest flaw yet IMO)
See ECL. But yeah, I agree, generally.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-30 12:06 ID:f3uTN9lx
Even C requires MSVCRT or the like (Windows).
get a better compiler.
>>1 Not embeddable or extensible (biggest flaw yet IMO)
Simple enough so that you can implement it yourself instead of embedding. Should be 100-500 lines of code, depending on what you work with.
>>12 Lisp has the most homogeneous syntax there is.
Out of the practical languages.
Scheme is fine, but Common Lisp is full of fugly legacies: "car"? "cdr"? "progn"? "mapcar"? Function value vs value? No forced proper recursion of functions in the standard? IMO Common Lisp kinda fails; Scheme with a series of extensions such as PLT wins.
embedding:
tinyScheme is primarily for embedding. GIMP included it.
Lua is mainly for embedding, and its designers took
inspiration from Lisp when they made the table the
primary data structure the way Lisp makes the list
its main structure.
parentheses
There are various attempts to make it more readable, like
pico: http://pico.vub.ac.be/
Forth roughly matches Lisp in line count comparisons and
abstraction. Although I think Lisp is more readable,
some people think Forth is pretty clear.
>>30
Wouldn't you feel k i n d o f b a d a b o u t i t if I did?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-20 23:26
1) Cannot produce independant binaries
Stalin. 2) Excessive parens can lead to an unreadable mess
Learn to indent. 3) Not much use outside of small configuration scripts
Emacs. 4) Not embeddable or extensible (biggest flaw yet IMO)
Embeddable Common Lisp.