2 ms·
As I said: if I wanted to write Lisp I'd write Lisp. I've already chosen not to write Lisp. I have no incentive to make my language parse Lisp when something mu
by ubernostrum 10y ago
As I said: if I wanted to write Lisp I'd write Lisp. I've already chosen not to write Lisp. I have no incentive to make my language parse Lisp when something much closer to my preferred language's data structure syntax is available.
The mere fact that a solution exists for a problem does not mean it is the best possible solution for all possible people in all possible cases, nor that there can never be a reason to develop or prefer another solution.
- junke 10y agoI didn't say it is the best solution in all possible cases. Just that even if you choose not to write Lisp, using a data format that follows Lisp's approach is not a stupid thing to do. > Undervaluing this realization (and worse, reacting smugly when interacting with people who don't share your undervaluing of this) is a big part of the gulf between Lispers and the rest of the world. You are the one setting the tone with your exclusionary rhetoric.
- ubernostrum 10y agoYou are the one setting the tone with your exclusionary rhetoric. Except this is basically how Lisp people react to things. "Oh, why didn't they use Lisp's version of this, it's existed for decades" is a common -- and, let's face it, "Smug Lisp Weenie" exists as a phrase for a reason -- reaction. Lisp people believe Lisp is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It works for them. And that's not a bad thing! What is a bad thing is the endless haranguing of everyone else about why we won't just do everything the Lisp way. Data serialization formats tend to bring this tendency out pretty badly, as the Lispers show up to essentially ask why anyone bothered to invent anything else after s-expressions.