3 ms·
Then it would become complaint against verbosity by those who only saw first lesson of a lisp book. For someone who started learning Lisp way way late in my pr
by e3bc54b2 5y ago
Then it would become complaint against verbosity by those who only saw first lesson of a lisp book.
For someone who started learning Lisp way way late in my programming journey, I would not have appreciated it had I not went through half dozen other languages before. The sheer simplicity of the foundational concept is liberating.
That simplicity means Lisp actively encojrages exploration (which is why you see so many Lisp dialects). Unfortunately, most people don't really learn anything new unless they were forced into it. Most people, aren't into exploration. They treat language as a short-term tool to get paycheck, and anything making them use more braincells, even to their own long-term benefit, is an annoyance.
To each their own, its just that as good as Lisp is, its MO don't map well with that of most populace.
- moonchild 5y ago> complaint against verbosity Not an unjustified one, in fairness. Lisp tends to prefer long, descriptive names.
- e3bc54b2 5y agoAgreed. Even more of a reason to not make + into add and - into subtr. I've thought about how the verbosity can be avoided, but at certain level of complexity, it is better to have long descriptive names, but I'm not experienced enough with big projects to propose a solution.
- lispm 5y agoit also has macro forms which expand into zillions of 'lines of code' during compilation