5 ms·
>... under control of a company I don't use. You left out an important part of the GP's comment. >By your logic we should be programming in Common Lisp. I wi
by shawn_w 9mo ago
>... under control of a company I don't use.
You left out an important part of the GP's comment.
>By your logic we should be programming in Common Lisp.
I wish. (Scheme is acceptable too)
- tialaramex 9mo agoI was talking about this at a party this afternoon (yes, I do go to the most interesting parties, thanks) and while Scheme is acceptable the Common Lisp is not because it's not OK to go without boolean primitives. Types are a good idea, if you have types the simplest is clearly the boolean, so start there. I believe firmly that there should be a single true value, which we might reasonably name true, and a single false value, false, other values aren't booleans, so it's no more reasonable to ask whether an empty string is false, than to just forget to close the quote marks on a string. What we wrote isn't a correct program.
- shawn_w 9mo agoScheme has a single false value (#f) but everything else is considered true...
- behnamoh 9mo agoAny Lisp w/o image support is no true Lisp in my book. That leaves us with only Common Lisp and Janet. The others (Scheme, Clojure, etc.) are just Lispy syntax but lack the true "soul" of Lisp-style development.
- int_19h 9mo agoRacket?