3 ms·
> Your simplicity becomes my complexity (fussy compatibility, batching creates latency, etc) Forth is simple. (It is not that hard to write a simple Forth syst
by msla 3y ago
> Your simplicity becomes my complexity (fussy compatibility, batching creates latency, etc)
Forth is simple. (It is not that hard to write a simple Forth system that implements the language in a workable fashion.)
Python is simple. (It is a good choice for a first programming language, and plenty of people use it to rough out ideas because it allows them to ignore some kinds of resource management details and comes with a large standard library.)
Equivocating on 'simple' is a neat trick if you can pull it off.
- tasuki 3y agoPython is easy, not simple. Lisp is simple.
- msla 3y ago> Lisp is simple. Look at the Common Lisp FORMAT function and say that again.
- MathMonkeyMan 3y ago[R5RS][1] is simple. To get any work done with it, though, you need to write your own Python. [1]: https://conservatory.scheme.org/schemers/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/ https://conservatory.scheme.org/schemers/Documents/Standards...
- amon22 3y agoThat is admittedly a bit of an abomination (very powerful though) but the language itself is very simple. It just allows the creation of DSLs which is what format really is.
- edanm 3y agoNot sure you're using simple in the same way other people use that word :)
- Pet_Ant 3y agoI believe GP is using it in the literal etymologically correct way in the vein of Rich Hickey: https://youtu.be/LKtk3HCgTa8?feature=shared https://youtu.be/LKtk3HCgTa8?feature=shared Pedantically, Common Lisp being a Lisp-2 vs a Lisp-1 arguably makes it a duplex vs a simplex…