5 ms·
<20 lines of parensoup> > How easy was that!!? ;) The problem comes mostly from lisp's dislike for text (my personal opinion). Lisps work best when everythin
by nothrabannosir 10y ago
<20 lines of parensoup>
> How easy was that!!?
;)
The problem comes mostly from lisp's dislike for text (my personal opinion). Lisps work best when everything is a list, always. As soon as you cross the boundary into... Well.. Anything else , really, you need a little bit of ugly glue.
That's why it's so ugly, in case anyone was about to make the "ermagerd if lisp is so great explain this..." comment. :)
[edit: which, btw, is not to lisp's credit, imho.]
- ruste 10y agoI completely agree. This is actually better than a lot of cases because Java import statements are just lisp symbols delimited by periods. This is mostly only useful if you're transforming lisp statements into code. Transforming java to java or c to c is just a mess. Still, If I need to do some ugly code transformation, I'd rather it be in scheme than c. :) Also, the example could and probably should be rewritten more cleanly. Hence the comment. That was the first thing I used the tool for and my scheme has improved since.
- duaneb 10y agoI don't get what you're suggesting. Add a hash type? The syntax isn't much different from a list, and sometimes it is a macro on top of existing lists. In other words, what is a concrete example of list syntax being inadequate? Literally every data format of which I can think can be expressed as a list or a derivative of lists (e.g. association lists).
- TheLarch 10y agoHow is string processing worse or uglier in lisp than other languages?