4 ms·
I think this criticism of lisp is overblown. It’s never idiomatic to introduce a macro unless you really need one. In the clojure community at least, macros are
by cultus 8y ago
I think this criticism of lisp is overblown. It’s never idiomatic to introduce a macro unless you really need one. In the clojure community at least, macros are used pretty sparsely. The base language is is expressive enough.
- pharrington 8y agoMacros are only tangentally related to mamon's point.
- cultus 8y agoReally? Because apart from macros, Lisp has less syntax and little complexity compared to most languages. The issue mamon was talking about is about different programmers using different mental models or features. If macros aren't overused, this isn't nearly as big of a deal as it is for C++ or Scala. I should except common lisp here. That is indeed a complex language. But Clojure and Scheme aren't/
- zeveb 8y agoNo need to except Common Lisp here. I typically find it quite easy to understand other programmers' Common Lisp. It's not a difficult-to-understand language, and neither are macros, properly used (and they are indeed rarely improperly used).
- lispm 8y agoClojure is a different language - it borrows stuff from Lisp, but it can't run any non-trivial Lisp code from the past decades without more or less rewriting it. Even primitive stuff like math operators work differently - because Clojure mostly uses the math stack of the host language.