3 ms·

> Even when the syntax is simple, the conceptual complexity of the language is quite big. Lisp is a very simple language conceptually. The problem is that it a

by nnq 12y ago

> Even when the syntax is simple, the conceptual complexity of the language is quite big. Lisp is a very simple language conceptually. The problem is that it allows you to build insane amounts of complexity in a very "free for all" way. No "one sane default way to do it". The problem is now how complex a language is, but how much needless complexity it allows you to build yourself. Go seems great because it doesn't easily allow you to build needless complexity. Though I've never coded anything meaningful in it, so my praise for it would be armchair thinking...

wbl 12y ago
Are you talking about Common Lisp, or are you talking about Scheme? Common Lisp does provide primitives for just about everything, in ridiculously generic forms. Scheme forces you to code it yourself.
- taeric 12y ago
  I think the criticism leveled would go to both. If what you say is true, moreso to Scheme. But the criticism is more that it allows this. To many, it even encourages it. For myself, I still like it, a lot. To the point that the more I learn of it, the more I'm confused on how it hasn't taken off better.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Common Lisp does provide primitives for just about everything Most of it are not primitives though, Common Lisp only defines 25 special forms. Guess how many keywords Go has?
  - lispm 12y ago
    I would see more 'primitives' in a language than 'special forms'. For example Common Lisp provides support for complex numbers and operations for them. These operations are 'primitives' in the language. This is unrelated to 'special forms'.
sjolsen 12y ago
>The problem is now how complex a language is, but how much needless complexity it allows you to build yourself. Any Turing-compelete language allows you to build arbitrarily much needless complexity. I don't see how it's a useful metric at all, except to say, "Well, this language isn't quite so horribly stunted that you can't even produce a nonterminating program." If you want to talk about how easy it is to build needless complexity— well, I've yet to see a programming language that knows the difference between necessary complexity and needless complexity well enough to allow the former and prevent the latter. Rather, languages either let you build complex things easily, whether you need that complexity or not, or they just make it a right pain in the ass to accomplish anything. Personally, I prefer the languages that let me express the complexity of my problem domain easily; sure, I could use them to make things more complex than they need to be, but I don't, because to be quite frank that's just part of being a competent programmer.

by nnq 12y ago

wbl 12y ago

Are you talking about Common Lisp, or are you talking about Scheme? Common Lisp does provide primitives for just about everything, in ridiculously generic forms. Scheme forces you to code it yourself.

taeric 12y ago
I think the criticism leveled would go to both. If what you say is true, moreso to Scheme. But the criticism is more that it allows this. To many, it even encourages it. For myself, I still like it, a lot. To the point that the more I learn of it, the more I'm confused on how it hasn't taken off better.
masklinn 12y ago
> Common Lisp does provide primitives for just about everything Most of it are not primitives though, Common Lisp only defines 25 special forms. Guess how many keywords Go has?
- lispm 12y ago
  I would see more 'primitives' in a language than 'special forms'. For example Common Lisp provides support for complex numbers and operations for them. These operations are 'primitives' in the language. This is unrelated to 'special forms'.

sjolsen 12y ago

>The problem is now how complex a language is, but how much needless complexity it allows you to build yourself. Any Turing-compelete language allows you to build arbitrarily much needless complexity. I don't see how it's a useful metric at all, except to say, "Well, this language isn't quite so horribly stunted that you can't even produce a nonterminating program." If you want to talk about how easy it is to build needless complexity— well, I've yet to see a programming language that knows the difference between necessary complexity and needless complexity well enough to allow the former and prevent the latter. Rather, languages either let you build complex things easily, whether you need that complexity or not, or they just make it a right pain in the ass to accomplish anything. Personally, I prefer the languages that let me express the complexity of my problem domain easily; sure, I could use them to make things more complex than they need to be, but I don't, because to be quite frank that's just part of being a competent programmer.