3 ms·
I can't say I agree with this, but I thought that instead of downvoting it because I disagree with its premise, I'd upvote it because the premise--even if wrong
by raganwald 18y ago
I can't say I agree with this, but I thought that instead of downvoting it because I disagree with its premise, I'd upvote it because the premise--even if wrong--is interesting.
People have often made the claim that Java is unbearable without tool support. Why could/would this be true for Java but false for Lisp?
- asdflkj 18y agoBecause you don't need to write a lot of boilerplate in Lisp, perhaps.
- bayareaguy 18y agoLisp has a REPL.
- hs 18y agomaybe java code that has dozens of namespaces, thousands of classes & objects, hundreds of methods needs an ide badly lisp code written as fp doesn't require all those, so it fits the programmer's head better
- gruseom 18y agoHis point - "[Lisp] depends on specific features of a specific editor" - is obviously wrong. Accordingly, no such features are cited. Edit: I did think of one bit of tool support without which I would find Lisp unbearable: indentation and paren matching. Ok, maybe two bits. But that's a really low bar and, more to the point, has nothing to do with Emacs.