4 ms·
> You can only compare things meaningfully when you have comparable knowledge of both. Lisp isn't the only language which allows you to nest things. You can n
by ahoge 11y ago
> You can only compare things meaningfully when you have comparable knowledge of both.
Lisp isn't the only language which allows you to nest things.
You can nest function calls, lists, objects, tuples, and whatever in any language.
(a b (c d))
a(b, c(d))
Impossible to imagine, eh?
> Why don't you answer my earlier posts, where I show how to make similar syntax in Lisp?
So, your solution to make Lisp usable is also to not write Lisp? And I'm supposed to take that as disagreement?
If you extend it with your own syntax, it becomes a different language.
- sklogic 11y ago> If you extend it with your own syntax, it becomes a different language. No. This is exactly what Lisp is for. If you're not transforming it into hundreds of small DSLs (with their own syntax and a wide variety of semantic properties), then you're not using it right, and missing on all of its expressive power. In such case, yes, you may get rightfully puzzled, what all the Lisp buzz is about if it's just all the same stuff, but with an ugly syntax.
- klibertp 11y ago> If you extend it with your own syntax, it becomes a different language. ...but that's exactly what programming Lisp looks like. Becoming a different language every time you need it to is business as usual in Lisp. Syntactic abstraction - ability to extend language syntax - is central to Lisp programming.