Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

bitbucket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

#21

Post by pjmlp »

iagooar wrote: post #20
c3534l wrote: post #17

Oh god. They basically just took Go and added unnecessary parenthesis. This is the worst way to make Go LISP-like.

In my opinion, people who complain about Lisp's parentheses are usually the ones that have absolutely no idea about Lisp, nor have they any experience with it. Once you get "into" Lisp, you do not see it as a bunch of parentheses anymore, so focusing on this aspect suggests that the person who does it, does not really have much previous experience with Lisp.

Yeah.

    func(a,b) => (func a b)

    if ( a > b) {  => (if (> a b) something)
      // something
    }

Re: LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

#24

Post by chriswarbo »

iagooar wrote: post #20
c3534l wrote: post #17

Oh god. They basically just took Go and added unnecessary parenthesis. This is the worst way to make Go LISP-like.

In my opinion, people who complain about Lisp's parentheses are usually the ones that have absolutely no idea about Lisp, nor have they any experience with it. Once you get "into" Lisp, you do not see it as a bunch of parentheses anymore, so focusing on this aspect suggests that the person who does it, does not really have much previous experience with Lisp.

Plus the fact that a decent editor will handle the parentheses for you.

When programming in Lisp, I use Emacs with paredit (for inserting and manipulating parentheses, quotation marks, etc.) and have the default colour for parentheses be very similar to my background colour, so I can focus on the symbols and their indentation instead. The exception is when the cursor is next to an open/close parenthesis, in which case the matching parenthesis is highlighted.

Re: LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

#25

Post by scrupulusalbion »

This and Lisp-flavored Erlang make me wonder how far one could take the idea of a Lisp syntax atop some other language. As a half-joke, I wonder if one could make a Lisp-flavored C work; should I fear or be slightly bemused at the idea of a Lisp-flavored COBOL?

Re: LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

#26

Post by junke »

scrupulusalbion wrote: post #25

This and Lisp-flavored Erlang make me wonder how far one could take the idea of a Lisp syntax atop some other language. As a half-joke, I wonder if one could make a Lisp-flavored C work; should I fear or be slightly bemused at the idea of a Lisp-flavored COBOL?

Amplifying C

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11054089

Re: LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

#27

Post by ktg »

scrupulusalbion wrote: post #25

This and Lisp-flavored Erlang make me wonder how far one could take the idea of a Lisp syntax atop some other language. As a half-joke, I wonder if one could make a Lisp-flavored C work; should I fear or be slightly bemused at the idea of a Lisp-flavored COBOL?

Author here. L++ (Lisp-flavored C++) https://bitbucket.org/ktg/l

Re: LFGo – Lisp-Flavoured Go

#28

Post by c3534l »

jdc wrote: post #18
c3534l wrote: post #17

Oh god. They basically just took Go and added unnecessary parenthesis. This is the worst way to make Go LISP-like.

What's the best way to make Go more LISP-like?

Keep the functional semantics and functions, but with the basic Go syntax. If, as others have said, they don't see the parenthesis after using LISP for a while, then why bother adding them into Go in the first place?
Post reply on HN