4 ms·

LISP has more names (for function arguments), which convey more information.

geocar 1y ago
I don't think you know what you mean. Experienced Forth programmers do not tend to make functions with lots of stack-based temporary references, but leverage the hyperstatic nature of globals which are effectively keyword arguments for subroutines. Pre-CL, lisp programmers use dynamic variables in a similar way (especially around the reader and writer), and whilst this carried over into keywords in CL, the vestiges of the defaults being the old dynamic variables remains.
- HelloNurse 1y ago
  You seem to be arguing that LISP can be written with more global variables and less function arguments than modern "mainstream" style, closely matching Forth with global variables: from the point of view of readability it means gratuitous handicapping by throwing away a syntactic advantage of LISP (actual, formal names instead of optional comments).
  - geocar 1y ago
    > You seem to be arguing that LISP can be written with more global variables and less function arguments than modern "mainstream" style, closely matching Forth with global variables: I am not arguing anything of the sort. I am saying Forth programmers don't program Forth with deep stacks, and explaining how that is possible. > from the point of view of readability it means gratuitous handicapping by throwing away a syntactic advantage of LISP (actual, formal names instead of optional comments). I'm not sure exactly what you could possibly mean here. Sorry. standard-input seems like a perfectly cromulent name; I'm not sure how :stream is "more formal" or even what that means. Lots of lisp programmers I know prefer using a dynamic variable like standard-input instead of passing a keyword :stream argument, but friend if that's not you good for you buddy. I'm not trying to convince you one is better than the other for lisp, only if you've spent any time programming lisp you're surely familiar with this and so use it to have some idea how Forth programmers are able to program Forth without such deep stacks.

I don't think you know what you mean. Experienced Forth programmers do not tend to make functions with lots of stack-based temporary references, but leverage the hyperstatic nature of globals which are effectively keyword arguments for subroutines. Pre-CL, lisp programmers use dynamic variables in a similar way (especially around the reader and writer), and whilst this carried over into keywords in CL, the vestiges of the defaults being the old dynamic variables remains.

HelloNurse 1y ago
You seem to be arguing that LISP can be written with more global variables and less function arguments than modern "mainstream" style, closely matching Forth with global variables: from the point of view of readability it means gratuitous handicapping by throwing away a syntactic advantage of LISP (actual, formal names instead of optional comments).
- geocar 1y ago
  > You seem to be arguing that LISP can be written with more global variables and less function arguments than modern "mainstream" style, closely matching Forth with global variables: I am not arguing anything of the sort. I am saying Forth programmers don't program Forth with deep stacks, and explaining how that is possible. > from the point of view of readability it means gratuitous handicapping by throwing away a syntactic advantage of LISP (actual, formal names instead of optional comments). I'm not sure exactly what you could possibly mean here. Sorry. standard-input seems like a perfectly cromulent name; I'm not sure how :stream is "more formal" or even what that means. Lots of lisp programmers I know prefer using a dynamic variable like standard-input instead of passing a keyword :stream argument, but friend if that's not you good for you buddy. I'm not trying to convince you one is better than the other for lisp, only if you've spent any time programming lisp you're surely familiar with this and so use it to have some idea how Forth programmers are able to program Forth without such deep stacks.