Thinking in Lisp

SQL, Lisp, and Haskell are the only programming languages that I've seen where one spends more time thinking than typing.
That's because it takes forever to think of the solution in Lisp and Haskell as opposed to a decent language. Faggot lispers will spend most of their time figuring out how best to abuse recursion because they think it makes them leet programmers or some shit.

SQL, Lisp, and Haskell are the only programming languages that I've seen where one spends more time thinking than typing.

Because users of other languages don't think.

>>80
Well, larger things are usually implemented modularly, and so this comes down how each module is implemented, and using tail calls to nested functions to achieve reassignment of local variables is more of a stylistic choice, and in this context, only affects the contents of a single function, which is hopefully pretty small. So it's all equivalent, now matter how you look at it. You can ask the questions, which is easier to write, which is easier to read and verify the correctness of, and which is easier to come back to and add additional features to? I find imperative to be easier for 1, and functional better for 2 and 3.

Why doesn't everyone just learn D?

>>83
Not homoiconic.

>>78
One of C++ design goals was to compile C source code.

>>59
upvoted for lisplike

lispers will spend most of their time figuring out how best to abuse recursion because they think it makes them leet programmers or some shit.
lol, he thinks recursion is hard. That's just adorable.

>>87
no, reading through Lisp's shitsmear surface syntax is what's hard.

>>88
I lol'd hard.

]=> (eq? >>88 >>89)
#t