3 ms·
Well ... maybe just click the link and read the article? It is pretty clear. Ahh, the famous behavior of Lisp fanatics. Tragic, how it is obvious to everyone –
by soc88 15y ago
Well ... maybe just click the link and read the article? It is pretty clear.
Ahh, the famous behavior of Lisp fanatics. Tragic, how it is obvious to everyone – except themselves – why no one wants to use their language.
> No, CL is not statically typed. And your point would be...?
Uh ... what about
a) Author complains about the inability of the compiler to prove some property of his code.
b) Untyped languages – by definition – don't provide any substantial proving abilities based on types.
c) Therefore, you are completely missing the point.
- lisper 15y ago> Author complains about the inability of the compiler to prove some property of his code. No, the author is complaining about the complexity of the language. Maybe you should go back and re-read the article. Start with the title. > Untyped languages Lisp is not untyped. "Not statically typed" is not synonymous with "untyped." > Therefore, you are completely missing the point. Which of us is missing the point remains to be seen.
- scott_s 15y agoHey, you're both [edit: mistake, see below] new here and obviously knowledgable about the topic at hand. At HN, we try to maintain civility - it's an explicit goal of the community. What this implies is that if you're in a discussion with someone, and you realize they don't understand an important point of the discussion, instead of using sarcasm, it's much better to say "Oh, I see, you're missing point x."
- lisper 15y ago> you're both new here My account was created 1458 days ago. Just how long does someone have to be here before you no longer consider them "new"?
- scott_s 15y agoSorry, I said "both" by mistake. You are an active and well-known contributor to HN, and I know you're reasonable, which is part of why I felt soc88 was being unreasonable.