4 ms·
I never said "with lisp, everyone has to come up with their own syntax for commonly-needed things". But it sounds your mind is already made up by hypothetical p
by innguest 12y ago
I never said "with lisp, everyone has to come up with their own syntax for commonly-needed things". But it sounds your mind is already made up by hypothetical prejudices.
You said you stick with Clojure over Scheme on account of some syntax. I said you can have that syntax in Scheme. You then said the non-sequitur "the idea I created in my mind of each individual user coming up with their own syntax is absurd", which I agree with. I don't know what to tell you but you seem confused. What you said is not a response to what I told you. I eliminated the difference you complained about, and you complained that in Scheme it's possible to solve the issue you have with it.
There's no pleasing some people.
- mbrock 12y agoIt might work better to tell your own story about using Racket. How do you work with data structure literals? Perhaps you've found that Racket's built in functions are good enough. In that case, maybe show an example demonstrating that fear is unwarranted. Trying to please everyone—or convince everyone—is not a fruitful method of language advocacy.
- innguest 12y agoI don't mind if they choose not to pick the language I like, but I do mind that other people will fall for this faulty reasoning, and not give the language a chance. That's why I pointed out where the fault in the reasoning is.