5 ms·
It sounds, from this description, like Lisp is similar to Perl - "There's more than one way to do it". i.e. extremely flexible, and the outcome is a lack of co
by andrewstuart 7y ago
It sounds, from this description, like Lisp is similar to Perl - "There's more than one way to do it". i.e. extremely flexible, and the outcome is a lack of coherence, such that my Lisp code might look substantially different from yours, making it a nightmare to maintain.
I'm pretty sure that if I found myself doing development on my editor then this would be a form of procrastination because modifying the editor certainly ain't developing product related functionality. For me it's more effective to ignore or work around failings in my editor, or better yet, invest some time in trying to learn in more depth the functionality that is already present in my IDE that might approximately meet my need.
- msla 7y agoThe codebase is as coherent as the author wants it to be, without the language imposing metaphors like objects or a pure functional style where they're not needed. Lisp won't force you to write bad code, but that means it can't force you to write good code, either: If your Lisp code is incoherent, that's on you.
- andrewstuart 7y ago>> If your Lisp code is incoherent, that's on you. It's actually on anyone who comes after. That might be just me, or if the code is public it could be anyone.
- stan_rogers 7y agoThe phrase "that's on you" means "it's your fault".