4 ms·
I disagree. As Lisp is more moldable you can get to your point more easily, in a clear manner that is not obfuscated by the language limitations, syntax and con
by vindarel 8y ago
I disagree. As Lisp is more moldable you can get to your point more easily, in a clear manner that is not obfuscated by the language limitations, syntax and constructs, and it's easier to refactor (you have less code to refactor).
Like in Python, we have context managers (with statements), they're cool but we can't do much inside them. I wanted to use them to add logs to a list and automatically return it from my api. I couldn't, I had to do that manually everywhere.
Now enters a new developer. In Python he would learn the base style, function names, the use of our custom context manager plus the need to manually feed and return the list of logs. In Lisp he would learn that our context manager (a macro) handles the logs.
---
This thread gets comparisons to Python, so let's enlarge the comparison spectrum: Lisp has a better REPL (enjoy ipython ? You'll love a Lisp REPL !), better type inference, it is a compiled language, making it a breeze to build an executable of your web app and deploy it to your server, a better object system (method combination, polymorphism, methods not bound to classes,…), Lisp is stable,…
- base698 8y agoSome of the worst code I've seen comes from functional languages and lisps. Untangling a 100 line lisp function can be a harrowing experience.
- patrickmay 8y ago> . . . a 100 line lisp function . . . . I think I see the problem. 100 line functions, aside from methods in DAOs, are a code smell in any language.
- vanderZwan 8y agoIt also does nothing to force your code to be accessible by others. Something that especially academics need encouragement with.