>>3
only if you don't consider forth, prolog, c, haskell, and factor to be languages.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 4:10
>>4
Forth... almost. Factor needs to grow up a little more first, but it's a serious contender. It's like Lisp with cleaned-up syntax. The others: lol.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 4:30
>>5
declarative programming languages like prolog, haskell, and ml are much better than the imperative programming mess that is LISP.
and c just looks better.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 4:44
>>6
Lisp is as declarative as you want to be. As for C looking better... oh wow. You must be a Perl fan too.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 6:27
(display '(<3 LISP))
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 8:44
Lisp is as declarative as you want to be.
and from the LISP code i've seen, most LISPers don't want it to be declarative at all.
As for C looking better... oh wow. You must be a Perl fan too.
no, i'm just not a fan of oatmeal with toenail clippings in it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-17 9:07
Lisp is as declarative as you want to be. As for C looking better... oh wow. You must be a Zetsubo Sensei fan too.
>>19
So I thought I would express my surprise at the fact, so what?
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-20 14:42
public void init(){
repaint();
}
public void paint(Graphics g) {
Dimension dim = getSize();
String s = "Why does lisp matter when we have Java?";
g.drawString(s, dim.width/2, dim.height/2);
}
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-20 14:44
>>22
/thread
Quit your bitching. Moar enterprise plox.
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-20 14:52
>>22
What, you arnt gonna double buffer that single string?
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-20 15:44
>>24
in a language with so many libraries, why must this solution be endlessly reinvented?
Name:
Anonymous2009-06-20 15:54
(define-class paint-example (define-method public void (graphics g) (let ((dim (get-size)) (s "Why does lisp matter when we have JScheme?")) (draw-string g s (/ (-> dim width) 2)(/ (-> dim height) 2)))))