not from the language:
headache from the people in the newsgroups.
as in other newgroups: no precision, no gentleness, no focussing on the
posters problems & questions. Many throw out all their psychological
garbage (auto-collected).
unprofessional *"language-lovers"*, which protect "their language" like
their destructive egos. But some highlights. And of course some
'watchers'. Whos is this guy? Don't talk know, learn him, and then talk.
Now, the language LISP?
just finished with page page 64 of
"Basic Lisp Techniques"
<http://www.franz.com/resources/educational_resources/cooper.book.pdf>
The 64 pages? many red remarks i've made.
Some incosistencies in function naming, some in writing style, "calling
conventions".
Straightforward design? - No way. It's a myth!
But it triggers me already into new thinking-directions & dimensions.
I feel... its the last step of the long preparation.
"((((((((((((())))()()()())))))))))))))))" a problem? not really!
(let ((result 1))
(dotimes (n 10 result)
(setq result (+ result n))))
READABILITY WIZARD (for C)
(
let ((result 1))
(
dotimes (n 10 result)
(
setq result (+ result n)
)
)
)
it hurts, eh? ok, could agree to this?
( let ((result 1)) (
dotimes (n 10 result) (
setq result (+ result n)
)
)
)
today i don't code in C++. i made a break.
Did i told you, that i love this language. With all its *strenths* *and*
all its *weaknesses*. I grow up with it, and prior with its small
brother "C". Many other languages. But i stay with my *love*.
i think i'll continue with chapter 4:
"*CL as a CASE tool*" - overlooked on that. makes me 'hungry'.
maybe sooner as i think, i'll love LISP.
It will be hard, to leave my long-term *love* behind.
people, be happy.
>
> (let ((result 1))
> (dotimes (n 10 result)
> (setq result (+ result n))))
>
> READABILITY WIZARD (for C)
>
> (
> let ((result 1))
> (
> dotimes (n 10 result)
> (
> setq result (+ result n)
> )
> )
> )
>
> it hurts, eh? ok, could agree to this?
>
> ( let ((result 1)) (
> dotimes (n 10 result) (
> setq result (+ result n)
> )
> )
> )
Why do you persist in adapting Lisp to your preferences before you
know how to use it? If you want to learn the language, than do so
using the very well founded style conventions as seen on www.lisp.org.
Once it starts to make sense, then it is the proper time to consider
how you might adopt a different style. I think you'll find the style
seen in your first example above much easier to use.
When you first learned C/C++ you adopted the style conventions of
C/C++. Why should Lisp be any different?
Gregm
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
> > Why should Lisp be any different?
>
> cause LISP *is* different.
>
> is a 'programable programming language'.
>
> and thats my main interest.
It is indeed. That doesn't mean you shouldn't learn and use the
language's style conventions. Prolog is also different, would you
apply a C/C++ style to it as well?
To hack at Lisp in order to use C/C++ notation is not to take
advantage of its flexibility. I think you'll find its
"programable-ness" becomes more apparent when you use the conventional
syntax and write applications using it.
The approach you're taking with Lisp is akin to creating weird
#defines to make C look like Pascal- its ugly, difficult and fragile.
Gregm
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> (let ((result 1))
> (dotimes (n 10 result)
> (setq result (+ result n))))
>
> READABILITY WIZARD (for C)
My readability wizard is emacs (or the emacs-family editor of LispWorks),
and it tells me:
(let ((result 1))
(dotimes (n 10 result)
(setq result (+ result n))))
This is _far_ more readable. When you understand that, you've made
a good step forward in learning to read lisp.
--
(espen)