3 ms·

> Really? Yeah, Lisp can be verbose due to the lack of built-in syntax for things other than lists. Take the Common Lisp syntax/library functions (there's not

> Really? Yeah, Lisp can be verbose due to the lack of built-in syntax for things other than lists. Take the Common Lisp syntax/library functions (there's not really built-in syntax) for hash tables: https://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/hashes.html https://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/hashes.html Compare it with Python dictionary syntax: https://developers.google.com/edu/python/dict-files https://developers.google.com/edu/python/dict-files Almost everything that's built-in to other languages has to be given a name that makes sense in Lisp. It makes it more readable in some ways, but also more verbose.

NikkiA 3y ago
alists and plists are a much closer lisp analog to python's dicts though
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- trealira 3y ago
  That's fair. Dictionary literals aren't really any more concise than a-lists. A-list: (("the" . 50) ("be" . 25)) Dictionary literal: {"the": 50, "be": 25 }
- RodgerTheGreat 3y ago
  Using both a-lists and p-lists as mere structural conventions- and thus needing to convert back and forth or write multiple versions of routines to handle each- is a good example of how sexprs provide a superficial veneer of simplicity while inviting cancerous complexity in practice. The Clojure approach of recognizing associative structures as a fundamental building-block and giving them specialized syntax: {:the 50 :be 25} Is a clear-cut improvement.
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    At the risk of waking Naggum's ghost, plists are performant enough to use everywhere, and an alist can be converted to a plist merely by flattening it. I do covet the way clojure's associations are callable as a lookup method, though.
vindarel 3y ago
Please use the newer Cookbook! https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/data-structures.html#hash-table https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/data-structures.h... For a short hash-table notation, I now use Serapeum's dict: (dict :a 1 :b 2) and that's it, you now have a hash-table (with a representation than can also be read back in by the lisp reader).
- trealira 3y ago
  Thank you, that's good to know. Apologies for linking an old version of the page; I would edit my comment, but it's too late for me to do so now.

NikkiA 3y ago

alists and plists are a much closer lisp analog to python's dicts though

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
trealira 3y ago
That's fair. Dictionary literals aren't really any more concise than a-lists. A-list: (("the" . 50) ("be" . 25)) Dictionary literal: {"the": 50, "be": 25 }
RodgerTheGreat 3y ago
Using both a-lists and p-lists as mere structural conventions- and thus needing to convert back and forth or write multiple versions of routines to handle each- is a good example of how sexprs provide a superficial veneer of simplicity while inviting cancerous complexity in practice. The Clojure approach of recognizing associative structures as a fundamental building-block and giving them specialized syntax: {:the 50 :be 25} Is a clear-cut improvement.
- NikkiA 3y ago
  At the risk of waking Naggum's ghost, plists are performant enough to use everywhere, and an alist can be converted to a plist merely by flattening it. I do covet the way clojure's associations are callable as a lookup method, though.

vindarel 3y ago

Please use the newer Cookbook! https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/data-structures.html#hash-table https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/data-structures.h... For a short hash-table notation, I now use Serapeum's dict: (dict :a 1 :b 2) and that's it, you now have a hash-table (with a representation than can also be read back in by the lisp reader).

trealira 3y ago
Thank you, that's good to know. Apologies for linking an old version of the page; I would edit my comment, but it's too late for me to do so now.