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

The Nature of Lisp (2006)

defmacro.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#91

Post by dmitriid »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #24
ajkjk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really mind the parens, but the whole attitude feels indicative of a problem. Like - it's 2018 and people are still using 'cdr' and 'cons' as terminology and happily expecting other people to learn those words and not even feeling bad about it. If the person justifying Lisp doesn't mind that the word 'cons' is terrible, why should I trust their aesthetic sense about anything? If I have to have "miserable nota…

Conventions exist in every language. `car', `cons', and `cdr' are also part of certain standards (e.g. RnRS). And, honestly, they compose a bit better than `first', and `rest' for combinations like `caddr' and `caaddr'. I suspect that you're going to be even more unhappy with those constructions. The same can be said about older languages like C, which also have standardized notations. Why fix what isn't broken?

> for combinations like `caddr' and `caaddr'

Right...because `caddr' and `caaddr' are good because??? And when is the last time you consciously used any of those primitives?

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#92

Post by ScottBurson »

msla wrote: post #78
ScottBurson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely why Algol used ':=' for assignment ;-}

Eh, C/Java is an Algol, too. You know, like how Scala/Scheme is a Lisp.

I think it was Fortran that first used plain "=" for assignment; and C is a descendant of Fortran as much as of Algol. So that might have been a more appropriate reference.

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#93

Post by AdieuToLogic »

LISP is great, but the problem with making programs in it is that one invariably ends up trying to answer the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

  (just kidding
    (sardonicly?
      (isn't it obvious?
        (depends on how one writes it
          (like with what editor?
            (we all know there is only one editor
              (emacs?
                (Stallman's own
                  (not to imply ownership
                    (as editors should be free
                      (along with all software
                        (like knowledge
                          (which are just ideas with proven value
                            (requiring recognition
                              (implying awareness of self
                                (assumed when using LISP)
  )))))))))))))))

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#94

Post by chuchana »

ScottBurson wrote: post #75
sedachv wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parentheses are so much more frequently typed than square brackets in almost every context that you are better off following the Lisp Machine keyboard layout and swapping them on your keyboard even if you do not program in Lisp: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14985932

Yes, agreed. From your previous comment: > Apple does not provide a way to do these remappings on OS X Run Emacs (or XEmacs) under XQuartz and you can do whatever remapping you want. This is how I deal with it. Another choice is a fully programmable keyboard, though these also tend to have nonstandard layouts that require some retraining.

There is no need for X, you can just use elisp, i.e.: (keyboard-translate ?\[ ?\()

And unless you do need X, I suggest using Emacs-Mac-Port instead of of the official Emacs: https://bitbucket.org/mituharu/emacs-mac/overview

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#95

Post by mikegerwitz »

dmitriid wrote: post #91
mikegerwitz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conventions exist in every language. `car', `cons', and `cdr' are also part of certain standards (e.g. RnRS). And, honestly, they compose a bit better than `first', and `rest' for combinations like `caddr' and `caaddr'. I suspect that you're going to be even more unhappy with those constructions. The same can be said about older languages like C, which also have standardized notations. Why fix what isn't broken?

> for combinations like `caddr' and `caaddr' Right...because `caddr' and `caaddr' are good because??? And when is the last time you consciously used any of those primitives?

I use them frequently. Having to write something like `(car (car (cdr foo)))` is common (`caadr`).
Post reply on HN