4 ms·

I haven't used Lisp in years, but isn't it very easy to just name the list members by defining a structure ... thus making your use/purpose of the list elements

I haven't used Lisp in years, but isn't it very easy to just name the list members by defining a structure ... thus making your use/purpose of the list elements quite transparent?

dragontamer 4y ago
In a lot of Lisp code, people don't bother to use that feature, and instead do a lot of (undocumented (sets of ((lists) that ) have some unknown) undefined structure) I never wrote Lisp code professionally, mostly just as a hobby for myself. It was all just dirty cons/cdr/car code. Given how generic lisp-lists are, they're really free form and could be anything. They are probably "too generic" for a lot of applications, much like XML or JSON is overkill. There's something to be said about writing configuration as .ini files by Python's ConfigParser, for example. Or other simpler files (even .csv files) and working off of that. But Lisp gives you that "power" to have a true hierarchy / language built into your lists. With that power, comes great confusion 3 months later when you forget the structure. ------- A good, professional programmer probably should: 1. Start with the Lisp-lists as a prototype 2. Simplify down to a simpler structure, like vector, or dictionary/HashMap, if possible.
- kaveh808 4y ago
  My gut feeling is that this hasn't been true for a long time, unless you're really implementing a small test. Even then, using CLOS is quicker than deciding that "CDDR" refers to attribute "X". Modern CL is referred to as a multi-paradigm language, and I almost always start a project by starting with "defclass" and "defmethod" like in any OO language.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I think this was one of the big differences from Scheme vs CL. Scheme, especially R5RS which is what I played around with the most, was about purity and simplicity. It wasn't really a practical/pragmatic language (though practical Schemes existed, like Racket), it was almost a "group study" in functional programming and greater programming concepts. Common Lisp of course, was a practical/pragmatic language from the start. So of course you use vectors / hash maps / object-oriented programming. ------- That being said, I fondly remember a lot of my scheme code, even if it was a bit quick-and-dirty. Its a paradigm that clearly works for a ton of problems.
- lispm 4y ago
  > A good, professional programmer probably should: 1. Start with the Lisp-lists as a prototype Don't. Lisp since decades has a lot of different data types which are easy to use: vector/arrays, structures (-> records), classes, etc.

I haven't used Lisp in years, but isn't it very easy to just name the list members by defining a structure ... thus making your use/purpose of the list elements quite transparent?

dragontamer 4y ago

In a lot of Lisp code, people don't bother to use that feature, and instead do a lot of (undocumented (sets of ((lists) that ) have some unknown) undefined structure) I never wrote Lisp code professionally, mostly just as a hobby for myself. It was all just dirty cons/cdr/car code. Given how generic lisp-lists are, they're really free form and could be anything. They are probably "too generic" for a lot of applications, much like XML or JSON is overkill. There's something to be said about writing configuration as .ini files by Python's ConfigParser, for example. Or other simpler files (even .csv files) and working off of that. But Lisp gives you that "power" to have a true hierarchy / language built into your lists. With that power, comes great confusion 3 months later when you forget the structure. ------- A good, professional programmer probably should: 1. Start with the Lisp-lists as a prototype 2. Simplify down to a simpler structure, like vector, or dictionary/HashMap, if possible.

kaveh808 4y ago
My gut feeling is that this hasn't been true for a long time, unless you're really implementing a small test. Even then, using CLOS is quicker than deciding that "CDDR" refers to attribute "X". Modern CL is referred to as a multi-paradigm language, and I almost always start a project by starting with "defclass" and "defmethod" like in any OO language.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I think this was one of the big differences from Scheme vs CL. Scheme, especially R5RS which is what I played around with the most, was about purity and simplicity. It wasn't really a practical/pragmatic language (though practical Schemes existed, like Racket), it was almost a "group study" in functional programming and greater programming concepts. Common Lisp of course, was a practical/pragmatic language from the start. So of course you use vectors / hash maps / object-oriented programming. ------- That being said, I fondly remember a lot of my scheme code, even if it was a bit quick-and-dirty. Its a paradigm that clearly works for a ton of problems.
lispm 4y ago
> A good, professional programmer probably should: 1. Start with the Lisp-lists as a prototype Don't. Lisp since decades has a lot of different data types which are easy to use: vector/arrays, structures (-> records), classes, etc.