I'm reading it in the afternoon and evening, so nur. :P
(started reading/replying at lunchtime, continuing now)
quote: Everything that follows is contingent upon using decent development tools, etc.
This statement worries me - a good language shouldn't be dependent on a specific environment.
However, you neglected to state your preference for which tools are considered decent, which intrigues me.
Are you going to share tools which one who might be potentially about to agree with the rest of your post (but probably wont) would want to investigate?
quote: First of all, the parentheses. You get used to them really quickly, and before long you actually stop noticing them. They also provide Lisp with some of its most powerful features.
No, see, it's not a case of noticing; I'm fine with that bit, it's a case of typing them and being able to read them.
I do CFML - half of it involves typing <cf at the start of every line - but that's not an issue because I can do <cfstuff> and <cfstuff></cfstuff> really quickly. If I had to do (cfstuff/) and (cfstuff)(/cfstuff) that would be a huge pain in the arse because of the placement of the parentheses on the keyboard. They're slow keys to type, and require a slight stretch, both of which are Bad.
Then there's the whole having to have a closing paren for every opening one - I use them in several of the languages I write, and it can be frustrating ensuring a couple of them line up. And yes, two of the three editors I use do bracket highlighting - it helps but it's not a solution.
With those simple examples, there are more closing parens than I can accurately count in an instant glance, which means there are too many, and would only get worse with more complex examples. (Peter Seibel remarked about leaving it upto the editor; I want punch him.)
The powerful features thing... you're going to have to expand on that, because I don't want to guess at what you're saying.
For something that makes readability so shit, it better be something so damned awesome that the thought of it fills me with euphoric glee.
quote: Second, what you learned at uni was probably actually Scheme, which is technically Lisp but is really unlike Common Lisp. Scheme is designed to teach concepts; Common Lisp is designed to program with.
That doesn't contradict any of the memories I have, so you're likely to be right. Although my memories are limited both by being tired and through it being too boring to remember.
Eitherway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - but I assume the whole dumb parentheses stuff is still valid whichever dialect/version.
quote: It's so ridiculously powerful that programming things in it almost feels like falling down the stairs, only you land in a soft pile of fresh laundry that smells like spring days and lemon instead of breaking something and going to the hospital.
That's an odd and worrying analogy, but one that doesn't work for me. I don't /do/ falling. :@
quote: Third, Lisp is good for any common programming task. If I was more familiar with it, I don't think I'd use anything else.
I'm not convinced of that - as a concept of having One True Programming Language/Syntax that can be used for everything... I'm trying to think if I could combine everything I do (CFML+CSS+HTML+Java+JS+RegEx+SQL+XML) into a single syntax I was happy with.... akk, I dunno.
Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't, but certainly the example I posted is nothing like what I'd want to use (even excluding the excess parentheses) - it simply doesn't 'work' as a webpage syntax.
The majority of me thinks you're a nut, Peter Seibel a complete wally, and I should go do something constructive instead of wasting time with this whole thing.
I'm wondering whether I should even bother posting any/all of this reply... but there is a very small bit of curiousity in me, despite this horrendously ugly syntax, sparked by the claim of being super powerful.
So, go ahead and give me an actual example of that power - and if it's got the magnificent potential you claim, I may well be converted. :)
|
