Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cthun Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Style Police (a rant) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:10:53 -0400 Organization: Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <681a23e5-2c6d-47e1-9625-4d63062210df@m5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: A2uecqCQlmj3ebU0+CkZsQ.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:7971 On 13/09/2011 12:54 AM, Retahiv Oopsiscame wrote: > On Sep 11, 11:42 pm, 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. So? > Prefix instead of infix math. So? > Auto-uppercasing variable names. Icky Common Lisp has that problem. Clojure doesn't. > And of course the big thing the Lispers always keep hyping are the > macros. With good reason. > Anyone who's had to maintain a large C codebase inherited from > someone else learns to dread macros. Learns to dread C macros, perhaps. > Besides the problems with name capture and shadowing which are avoidable, if you know what you're doing. > there's their use to create silly and lawyer-requiring new syntax > to parse. All language features can be misused. C++ operator overloading is just as capable of being used to make unreadable code, but doesn't involve macros. > Both C and Lisp macros look like function calls, deceptively, Everything in Lisp looks like (operator arg1 arg2 ...); so? > but have different rules of evaluation that can trip you up. Beats the hell out of memorizing long lists of operator precedence rules, or all kinds of corner-cases in the parser and lexer of a syntaxy language. > And don't get me started on Common Lisp's boondoggle known as the > LOOP macro ... The Common Lisp LOOP macro does, in fact, suck. It's ... unLispy.