3 ms·
> A mandatory formatter might haver helped a bit Lisp code was data and could be formatted a "pretty printer". That exists since the early 1960s. > LISP is in
by lispm 3y ago
> A mandatory formatter might haver helped a bit
Lisp code was data and could be formatted a "pretty printer". That exists since the early 1960s.
> LISP is interpreted, not strongly typed, so definitely another class anyway.
Some informations about the early Lisp compilers:
https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/a/12279 https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/a/12279
> not strongly typed
Lisp was not "statically typed", but was often considered strongly typed, when it was type checking at runtime. For example if the Lisp system would get (+ 1 'a) for evaluation, it could at runtime check, whether all args are numbers. If not -> error.
- usr1106 3y ago> Lisp code was data and could be formatted a "pretty printer". Sure, I have used it. Not in the 1960s, but in the 1980s. I don't doubt it was old already then. The problem is only that if the formatter is not mandatory, programmers will not use it and develop their own styles. In theory the reader could run it through the pretty printer before looking at it, but few people/systems have the tooling ready for it.
- lispm 3y agoMost people use automatic indentation in Lisp, though. Thing is: Lisp is different, it's more fluid in its shape than a language, where the code only lives in one source file. My own code and data gets reprinted in the development process on many places. I have a source file, I may look at a pretty printed macro expansion, I'll see a code fragment in the debugger, I'll re-flow some code in the Listener. Sometimes I use this IDE, then I use another one, then the code looks slightly different. But it always follows a set of rules.