/prog/ - What the fuck is the matter with you LISPers?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 0:55

I downloaded a lisp interpreter and typed in "1+1"
I got out
Error: unbound variable: 1+1
nope nope nope nope nope
Uninstalled and sanitized my HDD.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 0:57

Upvoted.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 1:02



(define 1+1 (new-tie-fighter x y z orientation-quaternion))

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 3:55

>>1
0/10

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 4:03

Just because you're used to so many languages that replicate normal mathematical notation with infix arithmetic doesn't mean that's the only way, nor does it mean that it is the best way. I don't know lisp, but I believe that what you meant was (+ 1 1).

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 4:08

>>5
Did you... Did you help him? What have you done, anon? Shame on you.

Name: VIPPER 2012-01-02 4:37

Reddit quality.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 4:59

There's no reason why infix notation should be considered superior to prefix notation. It's only due to historical reasons that it's so common. Just yesterday, I was reading some proofs about formulas written in formal languages, and some of the proofs were superflously complicated because they chose to use infix and other colloquial rules - if S-Expressions were to be used, the proofs would have been elementary - just to be clear, the proofs weren't specifically about languages using infix notation, but because infix syntax was involved, they did get more complicated.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 5:24

>>8
This.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 6:54

M'eh. If Lisp had gone postfix they could have eliminated most of the parens and more people would be able to read it without vomiting frame pointers.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 9:33

>>10
If Lisp had gone postfix they could have eliminated most of the parens
Nope, 3 2 1 - + in postfix notation can be written as + - 1 2 3 in prefix notation.
Lisp parens are there because of code=data=cons cells and making variable arity of functions possible.

Name: crappy shit 2012-01-02 9:45

If it ain't Lisp, it's crap.
Lisp is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 10:56

>>8
>if S-Expressions were to be used, the proofs would have been elementary -
That's what lithpers actually believe.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 11:44

>>13
Except they would, I do know how I could have written them in less than half their current size if prefix were to be used.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 16:37

In lisp, it's

(+ 1 1)

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 16:38

>>8
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~jhowland/class.files.cs2321.html/falkoff.pdf
Infix notation never bothered APL programmers or mathematicians.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 18:51

>>15
DON'T help him!

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 19:22

(defvar 1+1 (+ 1 1))

problems, solved!

Name: Anonymous 2013-09-01 15:02

The second result was proved by Cantor in 1878, but only became intuitively apparent in 1890, when Giuseppe Peano introduced the space-filling curves, curved lines that twist and turn enough to fill the whole of any square, or cube, or hypercube, or finite-dimensional space. These curves can be used to define a one-to-one correspondence between the points in the side of a square and those in the square.

What the fuck is the matter with you LISPers?

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 0:55

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 0:57

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 1:02

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 3:55

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 4:03

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 4:08

7 Name: VIPPER 2012-01-02 4:37

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 4:59

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 5:24

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 6:54

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 9:33

12 Name: crappy shit 2012-01-02 9:45

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 10:56

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 11:44

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 16:37

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 16:38

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 18:51

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-02 19:22

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-09-01 15:02