3 ms·
Your perception confirms my previous post that mediocre developers have a hard time to think in different ways, even to code in non-infix notation. Linux suffer
by progman 9y ago
Your perception confirms my previous post that mediocre developers have a hard time to think in different ways, even to code in non-infix notation. Linux suffers a similar problem. Many people are so used to Windows desktops that they have a hard time to think in different ways, and to appreciate the Linux way which provides not one common desktop but many ones which can freely be chosen.
It reminds me of the quote "Who knows only hammers as a tool considers every problem a nail".
Also the typical claim that LISP just means "lot of silly parentheses" points out that those critics have never tried to develop in the Lisp way. Ironically, as time goes on and complexity rises, more and more developers appreciate new features which have been available in Lisp for more then 50 years -- lambda expressions, maps, and macros for instance.
Lisp was so far ahead of its time that people today still have problems to realize what is so fascinating about Lisp, and why Lisp machines are so awesome. They should take a look at the graphical shell [1] of McCLIM [2] (a revival of the famous CLIM GUI) to see that powerful desktop computing can be very different.
[1] https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/static/media/screenshots/listener1.jpg https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/static/media/screensh...
[2] https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/excite.html https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/excite.html
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI think the best cure for the "lots of silly parentheses" argument is to ask someone to count the amount of (, ), [, ], {, }, < and > characters in their code. Java, for example, is easily on par with Lisp here.
- pjmlp 9y agoMy approch is always to start with a normal language example and then start moving parenthesis to the left.