3 ms·
> it only takes one wizard to make reading code impossible by outsiders. One Java architect can make the code unreadable, even for himself. > canonical way to
by lispm 3y ago
> it only takes one wizard to make reading code impossible by outsiders.
One Java architect can make the code unreadable, even for himself.
> canonical way to write a Lisp system is to define a DSL
It's popular, but not canonical. But even those DSL language patterns can be learned. In many non-Lisp projects, the DSL gets implemented in C/C++.
- baq 3y ago> One Java architect can make the code unreadable, even for himself. I agree, even in my original post. > But even those DSL language patterns can be learned. In many non-Lisp projects, the DSL gets implemented in C/C++. The friction is everything, otherwise we'd all be programming Turing machines. In Lisp, it is zero, by design; it can be good or bad, as most things in engineering. Consequences of uncontrolled growth of a DSL vs imposing artificial process limitations for the future of the software project must be considered explicitly; this is automatic when the cost of starting a DSL is non-zero.