3 ms·
> Do you see the problem? No. Explicit scoping is a huge plus. > This is why languages die, when the old guard refuses to see that there are better ways of do
by medo-bear 3y ago
> Do you see the problem?
No. Explicit scoping is a huge plus.
> This is why languages die, when the old guard refuses to see that there are better ways of doing things than what they are used to.
Don't mistake this for not being able to see beyond your nose.
- HexDecOctBin 3y agoSo, every other language that doesn't create a new nested scope for every consecutive group of intermediate variables is doing it wrong? Which is to say, almost every language apart from Common Lisp. Does that sound reasonable to you?
- kragen 3y agowhile i'm not sure lisp's approach is better in this case, i do think it's fairly common that 'almost every language apart from ... lisp' 'is doing it wrong', so i don't think that would be an unreasonable position to hold on those grounds ;)
- a-french-anon 3y agoYou're talking about a special operator, a language primitive. In that view, let is perfectly fine and clear. Macros are what you want if syntactic sugar is needed.
- Karrot_Kream 3y agoYou've rediscovered another essential portion of Lisp: the smug lisp weenie.
- medo-bear 3y agoI'd instead point out that an appeal to majority is a basic fallacy. edit: Let me also add this: you cannot get away from scoping. If you create intermediate values in your language of choice you better understand the implicit (and sometimes very complicated) scoping rules of that language. All that Common Lisp does is it makes this scoping explicit.
- kazinator 3y ago> So, every other language that doesn't create a new nested scope for every consecutive group of intermediate variables is doing it wrong? In my opinion, it is a giant, flaming misfeature. > Which is to say, almost every language apart from Common Lisp Algol; Ada; Modula 1, 2, and 3; Oberon; Eiffel; ...