2 ms·

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 wi

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.