/prog/ - Criticisms of LISP

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:25

The syntax is such that you cannot distinguish functions made by the programmer and those already built into LISP itself.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:29

Is that all?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:33

Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:39

That is a feature, you will learn in time.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:42

Substitute most other languages in the thread title and the thread remains moronic

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:58

What >>4 said, however experienced Lisp programmers would now all the standard special operators, functions and macros anyway, and newbies can use the implementation/environment to easily find out everything there is to know about any symbol, so they'd easily find out where it came from and what it's supposed to do.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:18

>>1
You're an idiot if you think that's a bad think.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:23

Lol at the idea of things built into LISP being seperate from things built by the programmer. Thread ends with >>4. >>5-7,9-1000 are faggots.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:31

>>1
>>7

Pot, meet Kettle.

Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 13:33

>>9
Please sage when shitposting.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:47

>>7
Your an idiot if you can't spell thing

Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 13:50

>>11
Please sage when shitposting.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:50

>>1
Hilariously ironic. This, a criticism of Lisp, of all languages.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:54

>>13
"M, Y, (space), A, N, U, S"

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:57

>>10,12
Please die in a fire, shit for brains.

Also back to /b/ with you.

Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 13:58

>>15
Please sage when shitposting.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:00

>>16
Please die in a fire, shit for brains.

Back to /b/ with you.

Also fuck you tripfag.

Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 14:02

>>17
Please sage when shitposting.

Please do not ignore our advisors.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:07

>>17
You're spewing mixed messages all up in my grill!

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:51

>>10
>>9
Pot, meet Kettle.

Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor 2010-08-24 14:55

>>20
Please sage when shitposting. You will note our operatives always sage during an admonishing.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:13

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

((FUCKING)(PARENTHESIS))

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:19

>>22
Oh? Which one?

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:39

90% of CS students learn a functional programming language

10% of those CS students end up making useful programs with a functional programming language

the other 80% of those CS students never use the functional programming language they learned other than to tell people they know how to program in this language to earn leetness cred

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:44

>>24
That would be 10% of the total CS students, not 10% of the ones who learnt a functional programming language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 16:49

You can't criticizes LISP! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!!!

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:00

I may probably write a Lisp that removes the notion of cons cells and atoms, instead representing sexps as binary trees.
TELL ME HOW THIS COULD GO WRONG

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:20

>>27
http://labs.oracle.com/projects/plrg/Publications/ICFPAugust2009Steele.pdf

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:37

>>28
Oh, I... I wasn't expecting that. Nice!

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:51

>>28
The people in the last slide are ugly.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:20

>>30
The photo was posted here about a year ago or so, too.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:21

>>31
They were ugly by last year's standards too.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 19:27

The forced bracketization of code.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 19:30

>>33
Haven't you read Schemeworld? They're called parenthesi

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-25 1:20

>>27
I think the main issue is that cons cells already form binary trees.

Name: Anonymous 2010-08-25 4:34

>>30
Guy L. Steele Jr. ins one sexy bastard.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-06 9:57

^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^Ba}c}k}}t}o}}/}b}/},}}`}`}G}N}A}A}}F}a}g}g}o}t}'}'}

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 1:58

Newer Posts

Criticisms of LISP

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:25

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:29

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:33

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:39

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:42

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 12:58

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:18

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:23

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:31

10 Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 13:33

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:47

12 Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 13:50

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:50

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:54

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 13:57

16 Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 13:58

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:00

18 Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor !fzcXE63Op. 2010-08-24 14:02

19 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:07

20 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 14:51

21 Name: /prog/ Etiquette Advisor 2010-08-24 14:55

22 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:13

23 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:19

24 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:39

25 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 15:44

26 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 16:49

27 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:00

28 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:20

29 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:37

30 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 17:51

31 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:20

32 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 18:21

33 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 19:27

34 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-24 19:30

35 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-25 1:20

36 Name: Anonymous 2010-08-25 4:34

39 Name: Anonymous 2010-12-06 9:57

40 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 1:58