Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 15:13
(define (lost-in-stupid-parentheses again)
(cond ((not (fast? code))
(must-be 'lisp))
((out-of-memory-again?)
(must-be 'lisp))
((cant-optimise? code)
(must-be 'lisp))
((cant-change? variables)
(must-be 'lisp))
((hard-to-do? almost-everything)
(must-be 'lisp))
((no-arrays? (only lists))
(must-be 'lisp))
((by-value-only? (even multi-megabyte-lists))
(must-be 'lisp))
((and (equal? (sizeof integer) 1000000)
(equal? (sizeof integer) (loadavg)))
(must-be 'lisp))
((because? no-I/O? (evil? side-effects)))
(must-be 'lisp))
((cant-find? missing-parenthesis)
(must-be 'lisp))
(if (and (brain-dead? your-compiler)
(nonexistent? '(for while do socket fork IPC etc etc etc))
(pulled-from-head? your-hair))
(lost-in-stupid-parentheses again)))
Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 15:58
>>1
This is what C programmers
actually believe.
Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 15:59
Lisp is very optimizable, scheme even more so. Common Lisp is easy to optimize as it has lexical scope.
Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 16:47
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((LISP))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 20:21
>>1
Incorrect assumption, please stop making assumptions.
Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 21:14
>>4
only true in Lisp machines. not conventional cpus
Name:
Anonymous
2007-10-09 21:53
>>8
Incorrect assumption, please stop making assumptions.