2 ms·
1. How quickly can you understand what others have written in a large lisp project. I found I was spending a lot of time interpreting what was going on rather
by Joel_Mckay 4y ago
1. How quickly can you understand what others have written in a large lisp project. I found I was spending a lot of time interpreting what was going on rather than the design implementation process itself.
2. unless some clown thought conditional tail recursion was super awesome for the next guy.
3. All code is terrible, but some of it is useful... and if it is only useful to a few than it fails as a language.
Keep in mind I learned on an RPN machine, so understand the sirens song lisp sings. ;)
- aidenn0 4y agoRE: 2 Tail recursion is non-idiomatic in Common Lisp; both because the standard does not guarantee tail-call elimination (as opposed to, say, Scheme) and because dynamic-binding, which is idiomatic in Common Lisp reduces the number of calls that are in a tail position. Also, tail-recursion is entirely divorced from syntax; perhaps you meant semantics? For example GCC will optimize tail calls in a rather broad number of contexts.
- Joel_Mckay 4y agoIf I recall correctly, some Lisp dialects had a super character that world close n open parentheses left open. You may have confused interesting with useful... Have a nice say ;)
- ortsan 4y ago1. In an average project Lisp would rank fairly high for me. In fact for making meaningful changes in an average quality large code base I'd rank it at the top, my order being (best first): Lisp, C, Java, C++, Python It all depends, e.g., C++ would rank higher in a very high quality code base.
- Joel_Mckay 4y agoDo you find you yourself more productive from a time use perspective in lisp? Or do you just prefer reading the structure in prefix notation.