2 ms·
When I look at languages I use regularly (largely Emacs), Lisp is the one I'd love to try to build something large with. It feels quite powerful and the syntax
by indymike 6y ago
When I look at languages I use regularly (largely Emacs), Lisp is the one I'd love to try to build something large with. It feels quite powerful and the syntax is pretty easy to understand. It could just be my personal lack of experience with Lisp, but there seems to be little standard in naming conventions and code formatting. This may be where a lot of developers look at Lisp code and declare it an unmaintainable mess. Often I've seen multiple styles of formatting in the same file when I look at non-emacs production code.
- ywei3410 6y agoEmacs is a bit special; a significant number of practitioners are hobbyists in ELisp and not professional programmers (which is a great thing!). I don't judge the quality of C# code by looking at amateur Unity scripts for example. Depending on your flavour of Lisp, there are a /ton/ of naming conventions. Here's a good reference for Scheme/Racket [1], under the section "Names". [1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/style/Textual_Matters.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/style/Textual_Matters.html