3 ms·

It's not a program, it is (obviously) a totally unrealistic hodgepodge expression for a list of constant values that simply demonstrates the literal syntax for

by jibal 2mo ago

It's not a program, it is (obviously) a totally unrealistic hodgepodge expression for a list of constant values that simply demonstrates the literal syntax for a variety of types of values (real numbers, dotted pairs, rational numbers, complex numbers, polar coordinates, etc. -- Racket is unusually expressive in the types of literals). Your comment demonstrates something typical of HN, and it's not a good thing. It's as if in a discussion about C someone posted, without explanation, an entry from the Obfuscated C contest and then someone else, making zero effort to understand what was posted, said that it looked like line noise and questioned whether C is conducive to communication between programmers.

euduhdhbene 2mo ago
First time dealing with developers I see. I’m sorry.
- jibal 2mo ago
  Nonsensical non sequitur ad hominem. (FWIW I've been a software developer for 60 years and have dealt with many of them.) I won't respond further.
  - euduhdhbene 2mo ago
    Apologies sir, it was uncalled for. The plebeian in me couldn’t resist. I am deeply jaded by my experience, but as you seem to imply your experience is different I am glad for you.
zelphirkalt 2mo ago
I think in this case it is probably justified, as the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true. To convey the amount of special syntax, it got crammed into one brief example snippet. Still, far less than most other programming languages, virtue of having parentheses making things unambiguous. Outliers are Smalltalk and maybe (?) Forth.
- jibal 2mo ago
  > I think in this case it is probably justified What is "it"? The GP clearly doesn't understand that code and utterly misconstrues its nature and the nature of the Racket/Scheme/LISP language. If someone has zero knowledge of the topic at hand (even when it's a seminal programming language that's been around for nearly 70 years), they have an obligation to at least glance at TFA before commenting. > the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true That's a completely different issue than the one I addressed. (And I really don't think the point is made in good faith--the sense in which that phrase was meant is well understood, certainly by the GGP who is so very familiar with Racket's token syntax and quasiquotes.) I won't respond further.
- so-cal-schemer 2mo ago
  Aren't reader macros just a convenient shorthand?

by jibal 2mo ago

euduhdhbene 2mo ago

First time dealing with developers I see. I’m sorry.

jibal 2mo ago
Nonsensical non sequitur ad hominem. (FWIW I've been a software developer for 60 years and have dealt with many of them.) I won't respond further.
- euduhdhbene 2mo ago
  Apologies sir, it was uncalled for. The plebeian in me couldn’t resist. I am deeply jaded by my experience, but as you seem to imply your experience is different I am glad for you.

zelphirkalt 2mo ago

I think in this case it is probably justified, as the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true. To convey the amount of special syntax, it got crammed into one brief example snippet. Still, far less than most other programming languages, virtue of having parentheses making things unambiguous. Outliers are Smalltalk and maybe (?) Forth.

jibal 2mo ago
> I think in this case it is probably justified What is "it"? The GP clearly doesn't understand that code and utterly misconstrues its nature and the nature of the Racket/Scheme/LISP language. If someone has zero knowledge of the topic at hand (even when it's a seminal programming language that's been around for nearly 70 years), they have an obligation to at least glance at TFA before commenting. > the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true That's a completely different issue than the one I addressed. (And I really don't think the point is made in good faith--the sense in which that phrase was meant is well understood, certainly by the GGP who is so very familiar with Racket's token syntax and quasiquotes.) I won't respond further.
so-cal-schemer 2mo ago
Aren't reader macros just a convenient shorthand?