More excuses. “We can't ever finish a single project in LISP is because it's too easy.” You guys are all talk.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-21 23:59
A Slashdotter may object that Emacs is already quite capable and can do anything that any other development environment can do, only better.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 8:32
LISP Is Suffocation in Parens
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 11:11
Computer Science is a BULLSHIT degree. Learn a manly trade, like ENGINEERING.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 11:43
Funny, that there are a number of Lisp-bashing sites, created by java and python people. Even funnier, than these people are trying to convice themselves, that their mediocre languages and software are worth something and that "the best is the enemy of the good".
>>12
It's a pretty leet thing when you don't even have to take the heat for correcting your own bbcode because someone else will come along and take it for you.
Fortunately, thread one is pretty good at explaining the nuances. Except they've probably changed by now.
How do you write such a shitty tag parser, anyway?
>>3 We can't ever finish a single project in LISP is because it's too easy.
I did a Warcraft 2 in two months, coding few hours every odd day, having zero gamedev experience, while also coping with a buggy and incomplete interpreter with no debugging support or unit tests.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 13:03
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
The real reason Lithp never became popular is because Lithp is a write-only language.
>>18
See is a language that is so dumbed down, it doesn't matter that its syntax is unreadable trash. You only need to memorize a couple of symbols. There's just not much of a structure that needs to be expressed, so you don't need a clear syntax to make it readable.
Sepples is a write-only language but everyone mostly sticks to the same dumbed down elements from the see language.
>>21
How long and how hard would've it been if he wrote it in C++? A few hours every odd day, with zero gamedev experience, a buggy compiler and no debugger other than print?
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 14:16
>>23
The point is that if he was working on a project large enough that it DID require multiple programmers, like an entire OS, it would have never been finished. RTFA.
>>24
Main problem would have been outsourcing cheap Lisp-programmers. Other than that, Lisp has a well done package system, which are enough for projects of any size.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 14:22
>>26
Also, Lisp favours functional programming style on a global level (while allowing imperative on a local level), which alone removes most of C++ and Java design bugs.
I don't know about everyone else, but I find this code to be pretty obvious and readable. The parentheses are like the stripes on a zebra. Reading Lisp code is as easy as counting the zebras in a herd.
>>30
No. C++ is caused by everyone preferring or not preferring Bjarne Stroustrup's favourite way of doing things.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 14:34
>>7
They're bashing Lisp for entirely the wrong reasons. Really, the only reason (which you have no way of working around from within the language) to fucking hate Lisp are all the fucking parens. All the other arguments against it are pure bullshit, since the core design is sane and shitty libraries can simply be rewritten. Okay, maybe there's a point about cons-based data structures not being well-adapted to today's ISAs, but it can be worked around easily via a proper compiler or JIT; or you know, by using (typed) vectors.
>>7,33
You're completely off topic, both of you. :\ The OP is talking about Lisp programmers not standardizing because it's too easy to re-implement everything. As a result, large projects that require collaboration (such as a new LispM) are impossible. The fact that we're still stuck with Emacs and its original design is proof of this.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 14:45
>>28 everyone preferring his or her favourite way of doing things.
In practice, there is only one way to do The Right Thing.
>>34 As a result, large projects that require collaboration (such as a new LispM) are impossible. The fact that we're still stuck with Emacs and its original design is proof of this.
I think it's rather because most programmers just go "what's with all the God damned parens" and walk away, which leaves even fewer people to contribute to such a project. Like it or not, most people care about syntax.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 15:05
>>36
You're a funny guy, but we're talking about the programmers who don't say that. This would make a lot more sense if you spent five minutes reading the article. It's even in nice big lettering.
>>37
I read the article, and I think it's quite off. The reason why shit doesn't get done in Lisp is because there aren't many enough programmers to do it, not because Lisp programmers are specifically egotistical.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-22 15:11
>>35
There isn't always one right way to implement things. The paper provides extending Scheme to do OOP as an example: there are dozens of different OOP frameworks for Scheme, most of them incomplete because they were written for a specific purpose.