Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Cthun" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer,alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Re: Style Police (a rant) Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2011 7:18:50 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <681a23e5-2c6d-47e1-9625-4d63062210df@m5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: n1hm03L4Zarg499Tb4CALg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: WinVN 0.99.12z (x86 32bit) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:7968 On 12/09/2011 9:54 PM, Retahiv Oopsiscame wrote: >On Sep 11, 11:42=A0pm, Cthun wrote: >> And what, pray tell, is wrong with Lisp, Oopsiscame? Let alone *so* >> wrong as to be deserving of foul language for emphasis? > >Parentheses everywhere. Prefix instead of infix math. Auto-uppercasing >variable names. And of course the big thing the Lispers always keep >hyping are the macros. Anyone who's had to maintain a large C codebase >inherited from someone else learns to dread macros. Besides the >problems with name capture and shadowing there's their use to create >silly and lawyer-requiring new syntax to parse. Both C and Lisp macros >look like function calls, deceptively, but have different rules of >evaluation that can trip you up. And don't get me started on Common >Lisp's boondoggle known as the LOOP macro ... As you were it was doubtful you owned a full basket of fruit. You now tell us it is all nuts. I see you are quite correct. Winter at hand I will be sure to send all my squirrels off to Montreal and google for nuts.