Why I still Lisp

Post by bjoli » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:31 PM UTC

zelphirkalt wrote: post #13

karlicoss wrote: post #4

> Languages based on the λ-calculus make it really easy to “play back the code” in your head. This really depends on the expression.. I've seen behemoth expressions such that you have no choice but write down intermediate results, or start explicitly breaking it down into sub-bindings so you could step through the code. And yes, you can usually step through subexpressions in the debugger, but if you have to debug any…

> I also noticed there is a tendency in lispy languages to avoid introducing variable bindings just for the sake of naming the subexpression, because it often comes with a `(let ((name (subexpression))) rest-of-code)`, which also results in extra tabulation for the rest of the body. Compare with variable introduction in languages like python/js/c++/rust, etc., where such thing wouldn't cause touching the rest of the…

Post by Folcon » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

bluepoint wrote: post #211

Folcon wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps Babashka[0]? It sounds like the closest thing to what you want =)... Alternatively you could just use cursive[1] or vscode[2] and follow the REPL guide[3]? There's Racket, which has it's own built in environment[4]. Perhaps you'd prefer Common Lisp[5] instead, I don't believe you need to use emacs? There are options =)... - [0]: https://github.com/babashka/babashka - [1]: https://cursive-ide.com/ - [2]: https…

So basically clojure x 5 and racket x 1. But what can I actually do in practice day to day?

Post by lisper » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

rini17 wrote: post #228

lisper wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that this: > Most implementations of Common Lisp prevent shadowing builtin symbols. is irrelevant. It's actually irrelevant for two reasons. First, the example under discussion was SQUARE which is not a CL builtin, and second, even if it was, you could just do this: Just make your own package and do: (in-package :my-package) (defmethod square ((n number)) (* n n)) Now you can extend SQUARE to work on thin…

Oh that's the misunderstanding, I was talking about overloading of the '*' operator and the consequent confusion, not overloading of 'square'.

Post by Abhinav2000 » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

zelphirkalt wrote: post #68

Abhinav2000 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When would shadow binding help create more readable code? (I agree with everything else in your post)

I think it would do that, if in the inner scope, you only need a part of something from the outer scope. Lets say you have a list of things and they have the name according to what they are, lets use "things" as a placeholder. Then in the inner scope, you are still working with "things", just not all of the outer scope, but for reading the code of the inner scope, it does not matter. You are still working with "thing…

Post by bluepoint » Fri, Feb 05, 2021, 5:38 AM UTC

Folcon wrote: post #233

bluepoint wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically clojure x 5 and racket x 1. But what can I actually do in practice day to day?

Well I'm suggesting more clojure things because I know clojure, I've used a little of racket and it was fun, as well as done very little common lisp =)... I'm not sure what you mean by practice day to day? These are all things that you could work on in various ways on a daily basis if you want? Or do you mean kata-like things? If so there's 4clojure[0] or codewars[1], which does racket[2] and clojure[3] alongside a h…