>>157
You don't understand. Again, the chicken memory of yours is to blame, I'm getting a suspicion regarding your preferred Scheme dialect.
Scheme doesn't restrict lambdas, I don't have to do any and/begin tricks.
Here it's 23:52PM, ````sorry'''' for my ``chicken memory''.
I can have as long lambdas as I want, split into separate lines and indented any way I want, as long as they are enclosed in parentheses. That part about necessary parentheses, it doesn't bother you too much, I presume?
What bothers me is to not being able to do
x = ???;something.set(x);somethingelse.set(x)
Now there's a problem -- normally, I use statements in Python, like, the "for" statement, or the "while" statement, or the "raise" statement, and so on.
It's too soon to say ``yeah, you finally get it.''
Well, as it happens, all my looping needs are completely satisfied with list comprehensions,
Look at me, I'm fighting against my tool! I need to do what my
hammer want me to do!
and for things like "raise" I can define a "raise_" function which does exactly that.
See above.
I have to do it once and then just import my "void.py" which contains everything I need. I'm OK with having to do it with a named function, because I have to do it once.
See above.
Nope, I don't prefer you pointlessly showing off in any fashion. too lisp; didn't read.
Too faggot; didn't read.
Not looking like an oatmeal with fingernail clippings mixed in, in a commonly accepted fashion?
It can.
It can't.
Hello, #I reader macro, standard even on Lisp Machines!
So I prefer to use languages which allow me to do everything Lisp can do with not much overhead
Too uninformed; didn't read.
and then do the things I want without looking like the proverbial oatmeal
Why, hello there,
Larry.
e.g. much much better.
That's just an example, it doesn't have to be real (n.b.: it doesn't)
PS: I want to point out that we quite digressed from my original point, which was not about why I don't use Lisp, but about the peculiar property of the vast majority of the Lisp advocates: they tend to praise mundane, simple features that are already included in VisualBasic.NET™, as true mind openers.
VBNET enforces Lisp-style of doing things.
And then, in more private circumstances, complain that it's these features that are too hard for the rabble to understand, and that's why Lisp is unpopular.
I even said it's simple.
Unlike VisualBasic.NET™.
I just said it's braindead. It is.
And that this enigmatic tendency might have something to do with the fact that Lisp is so unpopular that it's less popular than Haskell.
We're comparing sepples to dead dogs, now.
Namely, that the Lisp community consists mostly of mentally retarded people, and that is a push off of a kind.
QED. Oh, wait.