> Lisp has sensible norms Again, in your opinion. And sorry to start blunt because I'm trying to round this out as we're getting nowhere :) To me, writing my code like it's an AST, amid a ton of parens is not sensible.…
I don't think you can put those things on the same scale. I think it's telling that you dismiss Lisp's syntax like it's unimportant rather than acknowledging that it's the several hundred lb elephant in the room…
> You're just paying extra attention to the lisp ones. Because people in this thread are attempting to put-forward lisps' macros (and writing code as an AST) as some big win, without acknowledging that it comes with a…
> But that was just an example: there are things python will never have that you can add to lisp yourself. I don't want to. I want a language that has sensible norms. > As for your theory that macros make code harder to…
> No. Lack of macros makes code bigger, more error prone and harder to understand. I mean, that's provably not true. Or at least not provably true. Let's me throw out at alternative statement: Macros make code harder to…
> Getting rid of tons of syntax is not a sacrifice at all Getting rid of syntax that usefully expresses common cases absolutely is a sacrifice. What was that Turing tar pit thing about making things of interest easy?…
> Also, the syntax is one of the best parts about Lisp. I think you're in the minority there. I would hope most people agree that Lisp 'sacrifices syntax in the name of homoiconicity'. If not, then we have different…
> Macros are a language tool that lets you build abstractions, in some cases imo allowing better abstractions than would be possible without macros I guess 'better' is the operative word I question here. You're creating…
> Macros I don't want my teammates writing macros. When the whole programming community constantly talks about situations within regular, more expressive languages (with syntax) like Python et al, where teammates look…
> Lisp has sensible norms Again, in your opinion. And sorry to start blunt because I'm trying to round this out as we're getting nowhere :) To me, writing my code like it's an AST, amid a ton of parens is not sensible.…
I don't think you can put those things on the same scale. I think it's telling that you dismiss Lisp's syntax like it's unimportant rather than acknowledging that it's the several hundred lb elephant in the room…
> You're just paying extra attention to the lisp ones. Because people in this thread are attempting to put-forward lisps' macros (and writing code as an AST) as some big win, without acknowledging that it comes with a…
> But that was just an example: there are things python will never have that you can add to lisp yourself. I don't want to. I want a language that has sensible norms. > As for your theory that macros make code harder to…
> No. Lack of macros makes code bigger, more error prone and harder to understand. I mean, that's provably not true. Or at least not provably true. Let's me throw out at alternative statement: Macros make code harder to…
> Getting rid of tons of syntax is not a sacrifice at all Getting rid of syntax that usefully expresses common cases absolutely is a sacrifice. What was that Turing tar pit thing about making things of interest easy?…
> Also, the syntax is one of the best parts about Lisp. I think you're in the minority there. I would hope most people agree that Lisp 'sacrifices syntax in the name of homoiconicity'. If not, then we have different…
> Macros are a language tool that lets you build abstractions, in some cases imo allowing better abstractions than would be possible without macros I guess 'better' is the operative word I question here. You're creating…
> Macros I don't want my teammates writing macros. When the whole programming community constantly talks about situations within regular, more expressive languages (with syntax) like Python et al, where teammates look…