3 ms·

And of course, your code base will end up riddled with those untested, undocumented customizations. People getting into it will hate you for it, and you will lo

And of course, your code base will end up riddled with those untested, undocumented customizations. People getting into it will hate you for it, and you will look at them with a smug face, stating how they don't get the power of a true language. There is a reason Lisp based languages are not more popular: most people don't want to learn a new language every time they work on a new project.

cracauer 7y ago
There is no specific difference between compile-time and run-time (regular) computing when it comes to testing and documenting it. As for learning something new, perl6 is a new language, this construct isn't in perl5, so they are in for a learning. In Lisp no language modification was required to enable this functionality in the first place, and so you do not have to learn any new language or language construct. Yes, you have to learn the library that you or somebody else writes to enable this "enter the data in the safest way possible". But that is learning a library, not a new language, or language evolution. It goes back to object-oriented programming. How badly did they hack up C compilers to implement either C++ or Objective-C? In Lisp the OO system used to this day was implemented as a compile-time library. A library still used today, too. You don't have to wait for anybody to hack up the compiler, and test it, and document it, when compile-time computing is part of the language in the first place. ETA: Another thing you can do with compile-time computing, without waiting for somebody to hack up the compiler: https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-the-programmable-programming-language-lisp-79bb79eb068a https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-t...
- b2gills 7y ago
  Actually this feature is in Perl5, you just have to ask the compiler for a recent enough version. Though it has been marked as experimental because the Perl6 design for this didn't fit into Perl5 as well as was hoped for. That is it had edge-cases that need to be worked through before it is recommended for general use. use v5.10; no warnings qw(experimental); given (1) { when (1) { say 'one' } # only prints this line when (1) { say 1 } }
reikonomusha 7y ago
This is FUD and rarely happens in the real world. (It happens with about the same frequency people abuse language features in other languages, like monkeypatching Python classes in an uncontrolled way, which is just as bad.) Not once in my career have I heard someone either inspect or begin to learn Lisp and said “ya know what, all these new languages, not for me.” People usually don’t learn (Common) Lisp because it’s an old language, people don’t recognize benefits it has vis a vis other langs like Python/Go/Rust, it doesn’t look like anything they learned before, it more-or-less bolts you down to Emacs, it has no major corporate backer promoting the language, etc.

cracauer 7y ago

There is no specific difference between compile-time and run-time (regular) computing when it comes to testing and documenting it. As for learning something new, perl6 is a new language, this construct isn't in perl5, so they are in for a learning. In Lisp no language modification was required to enable this functionality in the first place, and so you do not have to learn any new language or language construct. Yes, you have to learn the library that you or somebody else writes to enable this "enter the data in the safest way possible". But that is learning a library, not a new language, or language evolution. It goes back to object-oriented programming. How badly did they hack up C compilers to implement either C++ or Objective-C? In Lisp the OO system used to this day was implemented as a compile-time library. A library still used today, too. You don't have to wait for anybody to hack up the compiler, and test it, and document it, when compile-time computing is part of the language in the first place. ETA: Another thing you can do with compile-time computing, without waiting for somebody to hack up the compiler: https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-the-programmable-programming-language-lisp-79bb79eb068a https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-t...

b2gills 7y ago
Actually this feature is in Perl5, you just have to ask the compiler for a recent enough version. Though it has been marked as experimental because the Perl6 design for this didn't fit into Perl5 as well as was hoped for. That is it had edge-cases that need to be worked through before it is recommended for general use. use v5.10; no warnings qw(experimental); given (1) { when (1) { say 'one' } # only prints this line when (1) { say 1 } }

reikonomusha 7y ago

This is FUD and rarely happens in the real world. (It happens with about the same frequency people abuse language features in other languages, like monkeypatching Python classes in an uncontrolled way, which is just as bad.) Not once in my career have I heard someone either inspect or begin to learn Lisp and said “ya know what, all these new languages, not for me.” People usually don’t learn (Common) Lisp because it’s an old language, people don’t recognize benefits it has vis a vis other langs like Python/Go/Rust, it doesn’t look like anything they learned before, it more-or-less bolts you down to Emacs, it has no major corporate backer promoting the language, etc.