Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How other lisps do it
92 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Lentz
May 14, 2013, 4:18:14 PM5/14/13
to
I find the frequent posts about how to implement various things in non-common lisps like Racket and Clojure to be interesting and sometimes helpful. I don't contest their relevance to this group, but maybe sometimes they can be a bit off-putting with regards to the way they typically begin with some boilerplate derision of CL.
Perhaps it might even contribute to the mindshare these posts could affect if they were not always composed as a confrontation. Or at least as one more clever and less repetitive.
Apologies for the lack of actual lispy content in this post.
Perhaps it might even contribute to the mindshare these posts could affect if they were not always composed as a confrontation. Or at least as one more clever and less repetitive.
Apologies for the lack of actual lispy content in this post.
Barry Margolin
May 14, 2013, 4:30:17 PM5/14/13
to
In article <052d3464-d3bf-497c...@googlegroups.com>,
I think they're often viewed as "showing off", as in "Why are you still
wasting time with that stupid, verbose CL when you could be using XXX
that lets you do the same thing in 10 cryptic characters?"
If we wanted a terse, cryptic language we'd be using APL or TECO.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
wasting time with that stupid, verbose CL when you could be using XXX
that lets you do the same thing in 10 cryptic characters?"
If we wanted a terse, cryptic language we'd be using APL or TECO.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Boris Smilga
May 15, 2013, 4:54:43 AM5/15/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:30:17 PM UTC, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <052d3464-d3bf-497c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Lentz <DanL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find the frequent posts about how to implement various things in non-common
> > lisps like Racket and Clojure to be interesting and sometimes helpful. I
> > don't contest their relevance to this group, but maybe sometimes they can be
> > a bit off-putting with regards to the way they typically begin with some
> > boilerplate derision of CL.
> >
> > Perhaps it might even contribute to the mindshare these posts could affect if
> > they were not always composed as a confrontation. Or at least as one more
> > clever and less repetitive.
> >
> > Apologies for the lack of actual lispy content in this post.
>
> I think they're often viewed as "showing off", as in "Why are you still
> wasting time with that stupid, verbose CL when you could be using XXX
> that lets you do the same thing in 10 cryptic characters?"
>
> If we wanted a terse, cryptic language we'd be using APL or TECO.
Actually, Common Lisp has its own terse, cryptic sublanguage, which is
> In article <052d3464-d3bf-497c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Lentz <DanL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find the frequent posts about how to implement various things in non-common
> > lisps like Racket and Clojure to be interesting and sometimes helpful. I
> > don't contest their relevance to this group, but maybe sometimes they can be
> > a bit off-putting with regards to the way they typically begin with some
> > boilerplate derision of CL.
> >
> > Perhaps it might even contribute to the mindshare these posts could affect if
> > they were not always composed as a confrontation. Or at least as one more
> > clever and less repetitive.
> >
> > Apologies for the lack of actual lispy content in this post.
>
> I think they're often viewed as "showing off", as in "Why are you still
> wasting time with that stupid, verbose CL when you could be using XXX
> that lets you do the same thing in 10 cryptic characters?"
>
> If we wanted a terse, cryptic language we'd be using APL or TECO.
FORMAT. And it is something I greatly miss when programming Racket in my
day job (Racket's formatting facility is, well, simplistic.)
— B. Sm.
0 new messages