2 ms·
You're getting really into the weeds. All I'm saying is the OP will behave unexpectedly for people expecting "just a lisp" (a Scheme-like and/or CL-like lisp).
by brundolf 5y ago
You're getting really into the weeds. All I'm saying is the OP will behave unexpectedly for people expecting "just a lisp" (a Scheme-like and/or CL-like lisp). It is not some kind of contract-preserving optimization over a naive linked-list (though those exist!).
The way those languages chose to handle this stuff has well-trod advantages and disadvantages. I don't love it personally, but I get it. Certainly it's worked well enough for a whole lot of software!
But I'm not commentating on it here. I'm just stating the divergence with the OP. Critiquing Lisp's 40+ year history and what parts of it should or shouldn't have been different is out of scope as far as I'm concerned. You're arguing against something that isn't being stated.
- tialaramex 5y ago> All I'm saying is the OP will behave unexpectedly for people expecting "just a lisp" (a Scheme-like and/or CL-like lisp) What sort of expectations do you think will be defeated? Beyond the fact that it's only a toy and not, in fact, a Common Lisp or Scheme? Almost everything is missing, but it's a toy. You noticed the Vec but apparently didn't notice the toy language still doesn't even have Cons at the end.