Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90419 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-15 23:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-02 13:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 164 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-15 23:36 +0200
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 15:17 -0700
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 09:09 +0200
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-17 20:02 -0700
Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 15:17 -0700
Re: High level C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 23:55 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:27 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 09:13 +0200
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 02:07 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 11:07 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 03:29 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 13:40 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 11:57 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 11:30 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 03:43 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 13:53 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 07:49 -0700
Re: High level C Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-16 17:08 +0200
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-16 09:09 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 16:26 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 18:05 +0200
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 20:15 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 23:44 +0200
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:39 +0000
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:58 +0200
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 14:52 +0000
Re: High level C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 16:29 +0100
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:38 +0000
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 14:17 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 13:46 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:05 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-17 11:03 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-17 03:39 -0700
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 18:20 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-17 14:00 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 23:13 +0530
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-17 20:14 +0200
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-17 20:14 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-17 20:45 +0100
Re: High level C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 21:00 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 09:48 +0530
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 00:55 -0700
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 22:25 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 11:40 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 05:05 -0700
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 22:59 +0530
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 22:50 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 19:07 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 11:53 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 11:15 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 14:00 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:01 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:26 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:57 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 17:13 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 18:14 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:20 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:46 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-20 02:44 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-20 10:59 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-20 03:07 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-21 01:44 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 18:58 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 17:20 +0100
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-21 20:52 +0100
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 21:14 +0100
Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-21 13:23 -0700
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 21:50 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 12:52 +0200
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 04:03 -0700
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:56 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:09 +0100
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:49 +0530
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:37 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-19 19:16 +0200
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:17 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-19 21:07 +0200
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-20 02:36 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 07:27 -0700
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:27 +0100
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 08:43 -0700
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:14 +0100
Re: High level C Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-18 10:08 +0200
Re: High level C Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 23:04 +0530
Re: High level C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-16 10:18 +0100
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:26 +0000
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:21 -0700
Re: High level C luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:19 -0700
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-28 10:31 -0700
Re: High level C luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 21:13 -0700
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 09:05 -0700
Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-29 09:30 -0700
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 10:08 -0700
Re: High level C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-29 17:57 +0000
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 11:50 -0700
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 07:16 -0700
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:34 +0000
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 14:55 -0700
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-01 03:10 -0700
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 07:40 -0700
Re: High level C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:43 +0100
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 10:21 -0500
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-03 13:14 +0000
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 08:40 -0700
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-05 09:28 -0700
Re: High level C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 09:55 -0700
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 15:51 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 18:43 +0200
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 15:43 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 00:52 +0200
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:42 +0000
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-11 12:24 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-31 16:42 +0200
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:59 -0700
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-31 17:12 -0500
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 17:12 -0700
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 00:54 -0500
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 08:08 -0700
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-01 12:58 -0500
Re: High level C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-01 12:25 -0700
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-03 08:44 -0700
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 11:56 -0500
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-03 19:29 +0200
Re: High level C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-03 13:45 -0400
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 13:23 -0500
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-03 19:27 +0100
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-03 21:04 +0200
Re: High level C Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 20:08 +0100
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 16:09 -0500
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 16:06 -0500
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-03 23:36 +0200
Re: High level C Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-08-03 19:44 -0500
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-03 15:03 -0700
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-04 19:17 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 05:48 +0200
Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 08:24 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 18:30 +0200
Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 10:34 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-05 20:50 +0200
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-05 15:39 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 00:50 +0200
Re: High level C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 17:08 -0700
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 02:23 +0200
Re: High level C raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-06 10:03 +0000
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 12:13 +0200
Re: High level C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-06 11:10 -0400
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 17:40 +0200
Re: High level C "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-06 11:56 -0400
Re: High level C Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-06 17:51 +0200
Re: High level C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 09:12 -0700
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-31 22:07 +0200
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 15:05 -0700
Re: High level C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-03 11:22 +1200
Re: High level C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-03 08:50 -0700
Re: High level C BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:12 +0100
Re: High level C Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-15 20:16 -0400
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 09:17 +0200
Re: High level C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-16 08:20 -0700
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-16 17:24 +0200
Re: High level C Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-16 09:24 -0700
Re: High level C carlglassberg@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:15 -0700
Re: High level C carlglassberg@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:22 -0700
Re: High level C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-17 23:58 +0200
Re: High level C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 13:20 -0700
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 18:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmdlve$j52$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90448 |
Le 16/07/2016 à 17:26, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : [snip] Wasn't the subject line the C language? Can't we ever discuss C in this dammed newsgroup?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 20:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d1mdl7hd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90450 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > Le 16/07/2016 à 17:26, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : > [snip] > > Wasn't the subject line the C language? > > Can't we ever discuss C in this dammed newsgroup? I'm happy to, but your post said you like to write scripts in C. Well OK, but there's not much to discuss there. It was all the other stuff you said that was controversial. But you are right and I promise make at least one C related reply to anything you choose to say about C for the next week. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 23:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nme9sr$pq6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90455 |
Le 16/07/2016 à 21:15, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : > I'm happy to, but your post said you like to write scripts in C. Well > OK, but there's not much to discuss there. OK Ben. Forget it then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793c7ca.2658890@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90450 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > Le 16/07/2016 à 17:26, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : > [snip] > > Wasn't the subject line the C language? No. The subject line of this thread is "High level C", while the subject itself started out as your own _extensions_ to C. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 22:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn0lpq$9nu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90861 |
Le 23/07/2016 à 21:39, Richard Bos a écrit : > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > >> Le 16/07/2016 à 17:26, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : >> [snip] >> >> Wasn't the subject line the C language? > > No. The subject line of this thread is "High level C", while the subject > itself started out as your own _extensions_ to C. > > Richard > What extensions? I did not mention any extensions to anything You are just trying to spread FUD. The CCL is written in C89 Bur since your friend thompson woke up in another thread, you feel forced to say something against me, like all "regulars" here since years. Never a technical proposition, or a technical discussion about C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5798c96f.2083437@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90876 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > Le 23/07/2016 à 21:39, Richard Bos a écrit : > > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > > > >> Le 16/07/2016 à 17:26, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : > >> [snip] > >> > >> Wasn't the subject line the C language? > > > > No. The subject line of this thread is "High level C", while the subject > > itself started out as your own _extensions_ to C. > What extensions? > > I did not mention any extensions to anything You are just trying to > spread FUD. Don't use terms you don't understand. > The CCL is written in C89 Yes, and you've tried to get it into the Standard. > Bur since your friend thompson woke up in another thread, you feel > forced to say something against me, like all "regulars" here since years. Keith is not my friend, and you're not being prosecuted. Your opinions are being challenged by people who don't agree with them, but for different reasons, not out of a cliquey hatred of all things French. (It may have escaped your notice that, unlike the other Richard, I am _not_ English and therefore do not have a pathological hatred of continental Europe.) > Never a technical proposition, Proposition? What, for yet another extension? No, thanks. I don't want your bundle, why should I propose my own? > or a technical discussion about C. *Looks at other threads* Erm... what? Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 16:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nnak0n$bbj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91135 |
[Cross-posted to afp and followups set.] On 27/07/16 15:52, Richard Bos wrote: <snip> > Keith is not my friend, and you're not being prosecuted. Your opinions > are being challenged by people who don't agree with them, but for > different reasons, not out of a cliquey hatred of all things French. > (It may have escaped your notice that, unlike the other Richard, I am > _not_ English and therefore do not have a pathological hatred of > continental Europe.) It may have escaped the other Richard's notice that, unlike the other Richard, I am _not_ Dutch and therefore do not have a pathological compulsion to ascribe blanket national characteristics to entire populations, any more than the Dutch do, except for some of them. Furthermore, it's possible to be pro-Europe but anti-EU. But perhaps we can move that discussion to alt.fan.pratchett (where a recent discussion took place on the UK's EU referendum and where topicality is rather more flexible than it is here in comp.lang.c)? Follow-ups set in the hope that you agree it's a smart move. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793c4d1.1898078@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90444 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 1:53:22 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> > <snip>
> > > But humans can only cope with three levels of nested parentheses,
> > > that's the flaw in the scheme.
> >
> > Please stop saying this. It's trivial to write highly nested forms in
> > Lisp because they are not arbitrary. The patterns are just as easy to
> > see as 'while (...) { ... }' and so on.
> >
> No, you need special software support to write Lisp code.
Erm. Do you have the slightest idea how effing old Lisp is? It's one of
the earliest programming languages that's still around - certainly the
second-oldest _well-known_ programming language still used, after
Fortran.
When Lisp was designed, there wasn't any special software around to
write code in. Lisp _had_ to be writable in a normal editor, because
that was all there was. And it still is: Lisp code is just text, you
need nothing more special for it than you do for C.
You may be thinking of APL instead, which has a weird character set and
needs a space cadet keyboard. But Lisp and APL are _very_ different
languages; APL actually _is_ as arcane and ill-legible as you and Bart
believe Lisp and C are. Put together, in fact.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 14:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmdc4t$htu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90438 |
On 16/07/2016 11:43, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:30:29 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> Lisp didn't catch on because its syntax stinks. People don't want to >> write in what looks like some intermediate code of a compiler. > This isn't exactly what I worked from but is essentially the same > material. (Maddeningly, he says supply only quote, atom, eq, cons, > car, cdr, cond. and then doesn't explain defun, which puts the > function into Lisp's global namespace. So actually I think you > also need to supply "set".) > > http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/paulgraham/jmc.lisp > > But you see how simple and elegant it is? And it's not a "Turing > tarpit" either. It's powerful and expressive. Deceptively simple (as an estate agent might say). While the syntax is minimal, Lisp makes up for it by complexity in the rest of the language. Real implementations are huge. > But humans can only cope with three levels of nested parentheses, > that's the flaw in the scheme. Not really; didn't the original Lisp not use parentheses? Anyway, given the same ideas, you can invent any syntax you like. Or use tricks such as writing BEGIN/END for certain categories of parentheses. (Actually I've experimented with a front-end for Lisp that uses conventional syntax which is then translated into familiar Lisp form. You never need to match the parentheses other than to the extent you have to in any language. Of course with this approach, you can't easily make use of some of the advanced stuff that Lisp is famous for. But some aren't interested in doing so!) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 13:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87twfplphq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90437 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 16/07/2016 11:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >>> it's just too difficult to write >>> even simple functions in Lisp. Even things like fibonacci generators, >>> which are the poster boys for that type of programming. It's too >>> hard to work out whether the program is efficient or exhibits >>> catastrophic multiple recursion. >> >> You often trot this out. It's either just propaganda or you don't know >> Lisp. For example >> >> (defun fib (x) >> (let ((a 0) (b 1)) >> (loop repeat x do >> (psetq a b >> b (+ a b))) >> a)) >> >> has no recursion, "catastrophic" or otherwise. > > Lisp didn't catch on because its syntax stinks. People don't want to > write in what looks like some intermediate code of a compiler. I has caught on, and some people do. Your parochial view is not universal. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 12:05 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <nmf8v3$afa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90437 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 07/16/2016 04:00 PM, BartC wrote: > Lisp didn't catch on because its syntax stinks. We can be glad that this is subjective, then. > People don't want to write in what looks like some intermediate code > of a compiler. I am quite sure individuals would like to retain the ability to decide for themselves what they ought or not to like. > I had to guess what some of the above did, especially psetq, but the > following styles are far easier on the eye: To some people, of course, yes. -- Udyant Wig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 11:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmfl5m$b3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90463 |
On 17/07/2016 07:35, Udyant Wig wrote: > On 07/16/2016 04:00 PM, BartC wrote: >> Lisp didn't catch on because its syntax stinks. > > We can be glad that this is subjective, then. When most people have the same subjective opinion, then perhaps it isn't so subjective. Or do the majority really want to write (nth A i) instead of A[i]? > >> People don't want to write in what looks like some intermediate code >> of a compiler. > > I am quite sure individuals would like to retain the ability to decide > for themselves what they ought or not to like. Great! Then they can dispose with the front-ends of most compilers and just write in the intermediate code directly. What a waste of time providing a richer, higher level, more visually distinctive syntax, when you can just use the monotonic style of Lisp and still achieve the same productivity and readability. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 03:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af8e9b9b-fff6-4b92-b7d7-426c23d0da09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90467 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 11:03:42 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 17/07/2016 07:35, Udyant Wig wrote: > > On 07/16/2016 04:00 PM, BartC wrote: > >> Lisp didn't catch on because its syntax stinks. > > > > We can be glad that this is subjective, then. > > When most people have the same subjective opinion, then perhaps it isn't > so subjective. > > Or do the majority really want to write (nth A i) instead of A[i]? > They're claims about psychology. When I say humans can't match more than three levels of nested parentheses, obviously that's not a mathematical claim. Not, unless you test absolutely every person in the world, can you be sure there aren't some exceptions. But you can potentially test up formal tests. You do need a medium level of resources. It's the type of thing that would make a good psychology undergraduate project. You need to recruit subjects, eliminate systematic biases, devise a test that shows what you want and, ideally disguises the purpose of the experiment from the subjects to avoid them doing what they think the experimenter wants rather than what they would do in a non-experimental set-up. It's neither prohibitively difficult nor easy enough to do on a whim. > > > >> People don't want to write in what looks like some intermediate code > >> of a compiler. > > > > I am quite sure individuals would like to retain the ability to decide > > for themselves what they ought or not to like. > > Great! Then they can dispose with the front-ends of most compilers and > just write in the intermediate code directly. > > What a waste of time providing a richer, higher level, more visually > distinctive syntax, when you can just use the monotonic style of Lisp > and still achieve the same productivity and readability. > "Give people the choice" a standard cop-out. It's actually a mark of amateur programs. Software written by amateurs commonly comes with an interface that gives lots of options, most of them pretty abstruse. Every time there's a free parameter that can be passed to an algorithm or a decision to be made, it appears as a option somewhere for the user to set. Software written by professionals as a product for external customers tends not to do that, a lot of thought goes into the interface, you only have a few basic options which reflect decisions which must be made by the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 18:20 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <nmfuus$8tr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90467 |
[Could not decode multipart message] — view raw
This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --mXj6LbisV5KaKvN4ROvb0LBjH2ri6fCEK Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted Content-Description: PGP/MIME version identification Version: 1 --mXj6LbisV5KaKvN4ROvb0LBjH2ri6fCEK Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="encrypted.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP encrypted message Content-Disposition: inline; filename="encrypted.asc" -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v2 hQIMA9Y6JG92+/q0AQ//fFLrayIP4/eibJUHAN4WSv6OfzIY/p4qipSiUruClOkY QtozzgJSEJvO8A1xFhaWNtg8KCQ0MRiM8JaIv4JLoi0UX40axJPOvUGrgZawVDf6 iD3N0oGDjxLLwdZp8elMyLcW9XWvW4FJ6pJsycN2OXuQb3Ibie9N+YfXdW/70/3v gd570UD3mKUOBXHvPtu4zmObTcTnME55W4tsUbgjwhdLhyrI+1AxfWhsKnP+ecNX esbQ+K8WpsIMalX2mTb9d9PIIiqp6z516KREoOQE9qfCMEiLwJ8Pmkp9MAmXBZYP jJ8af5OHs9HeBYtS8EBBtLIBOgXECWHK4Y3CYjrPeRXaxUGyoaWBtD+cZDpnyvii U6lYUVT1VwlLcgeBTVLF9XWAKQvp5S91/w72pMJLrigtXeNt4dns8qEVqZyucIHU EodKZ5oNFCGdeLLXsPudw0rQKRfq5G9VSkxk1gHPOUOC7R6HB67r0C3Ee8QnVA8u BjP6Fp3pH55/hsLre9ygWyKOG1S6cX0T2cFhU2yDoiRUIXUDQ4IN8QBtUva8g3Fg 6xPNxiew+NOaEYpAiWSXRJoCzKNZojWKRVZeaY8rqT8buELh1D6Sew94J7Y/Ky58 pszrBlJNIMbhDjTw5on4kekSjP6b08E7U6cQwu3VM+Cs7ejiIpTDzHQvlRERu4fS 7AFW9x5h8WdqBDldX8Ne2/DUx3kO5a1ZU8fOu8MdE6NC97GYYkJpaeaosjwdUjQh C1BbcQ8E+iNBblUWXCAkRwP6vdmcXPWOM/+hACrT1mLTZgcpfNCXaHEVWNBBZGUl yMNGhKJvOUlh9s1GkBPQZm2Oy/IUqp2maL1ztNdZsbDYSoVHLuGo/vCK9oEL9QZc HMWT4jiMAVGcwsPDdtXyNzfY/cIEu19pukl8JtcNDcqALGCyMWedFDam0Z0lWloG uqwjdCVrrxox6GbTAKyjwCVE9XrvJ/+Kr519C+tObeipF/CwL5FkeqSNorQ/Nsux +I+XB4T6NrkrFOOGQrjakLVryQnFKMTAVPmvxpb7V3s3yzCJvF2MZRyvwSVN+5Iz QzDqMay8G4UB0PK8l9+d6eP7Fzq9sA5sCFsmPywCh016aA8moEkhLVX3OTuuqAy6 FO8AtZmZ0Zhu95EvpRuQLufKUODsTVNBeTW96ZraCavQQeRnN3+dO0TBugAsACfP 7RS85yg3k1ZDTvmjHnpeaipqAeY8rkp4pqj4ZbAHRSKPvB6q/JCpEEAVYxW29fSY ICWk91wytqq/CaS0u9bcvZ4187DQuYSWCbj3PXrz9WDoKrr9blAZsZgVuPXBsB29 2OpRR4c0pN10ieJVC10III2Ro/Rp7waMVCZra9XGObb6KQwmLvGJeVuxwhUcFeuJ fDBQ0ONsuD89K6K+BI3f17y4TZozPV5KClF4av9XI4dJhJRCyTBQ3KhdUos5I8wN KY0DM3NuPj1PqAWNsoKjLhaIqdJ/Najowu/t60zquRvOqJ11edfpOAa7Ey9edeD1 9kDCjFFFljqvt0YPhlNcy8JIt18Otnv1GeGSS3KO49Ws0NiXa5BRXWi0FIXhgJzG PN1ajm685tT081RqCWVKhPbNM0RD4rPkfzT88m5WisWw+fWcBr7XBCDFHFh+zC9a IJa1EwHTnwXft2e5cqfawNYGGPOiwCeq4rKdwRuAWi+qKDTWhGYfCyRE4gDleYwo mtjfQqWyAtPhdylra5Wrb/Bl3PSfCTDtpOhqvihnn+WU7GoFOOulNmXP2u5R+SBK cVLUdRSQFkK6HDD6nJKnm5gUpQSUb4wPKCrX8OdTvaop//cS/lQ6YyFLU2vGtqKB OBAp0LrtGTrARp9xQGT7vHVtw7FShzRj+Rh1lRBh7tW5xgcHxN9zHwc/aVdFDOuR yJiHXlWJb8I13pEtXZKXUNhh1CZLwyCYdQ2UzqLCQVmiIFjbN1fM8uKv/5+sDXMa UYA33iJRCwXDxoZ9N02WwBZiJPb5KbCKwOX1QksZot1HHHXvh1hhHatjpEawpKCr DiQ/pKC0W9nx1frDq242k23h9cj+fruh2g+zUBl9GTELCb3ORckytGCgc4qEwKKr bzrUDOWUtlJ1NbJtcbFBAAAE5i3ZWyXo9IIm5XddScSTQkfPc0puSOfMHbcnm5bJ KVIKM19vx7DmSj/BkxAAbcZu9ztNBTt2QfgSR0SYgzLl5ZgJpBDdkNqY1EYnpRw/ l8lAHhtBcqHhLbmgNMi4ZQlL0q/tZnbWpsZ/WQZu5bB3tL6RolAVbFIf8CPuNAgX /opfIqP7ZSTca0lN4sP/q5IWu95nPzLfpxu5HSEnv9vIIyl+Gr5SG3ptMgIgZIDN bjnTGd/qmXsMKcYJPx/+DWTE6Ie6dOHUUbAQiSgIkMpKW+cxgLlckCozeTY0BSf5 csb/y+Fiux4RNkBwXuWC5dhErJTV2DX7GAF/VuDxIyzXrCL1rjMdm/A4sgHX+rWX PfdBQahb2RH1+4fdo3UsxLPjaiI8fFgGM94lj3vJtkplZTttobNA8e66HMHgRGdn 9eVIFsNO+ZFoa50AuEghN3h+14xP/GZKaX07IBHhVl7nRufP/VpsQQPfK8cER9Vi RUwhpqqU0CIYZBw9yH/o6X/idB7GIcPRnNH8rYfrF1lUidILJ2Gvb4gmPO9X/eTk 7g9fh3LF+eegjyqs0tvEy9ts8gfqCwVWCGDAHQI9UR3BXDS2rROFyQuPzm0Htvel nHY/duRsCfEn+Dozs7m2hRVlswCdYw4Y0rxryI9VNasLstPtlcyVgGvtuPCmXo7c 4+sWjsdBlviQaM2BJwlTuapqi+Q1zekEmgrguEMkvjFtKf+qQk5tRLh3LkmFfFPH XEatpzU0kwrOIjIu/6xSRJKH7iAJeslmloCjb1sOuTuRK60e9WBxcx1Iq8/Xk9HU 1Zn07Fjn84cXfXL+B+iS6MiObYEDBTICiuAMuXp1pUTSlOO4k7e/UmirAwvQwTCR 8YpgotpnJvQu7fW14mlalbhS9pQbg5WWWwsSAcXjgkP0N3hHReFPS5E8i5luKViQ K5F2n7n2RMFbOm02gWar9LPTR5iXBypCEdv0Qw1csxEYzhhbx504SYubsB+ibsxK DgYmCLD+nirAXcTxgZG2p6nED6rLDfCkKPek/i47Fg5hXvj+mzdyfluS+uyGRyEf spbWUjpaWHqz3zozDpEaLrd7DmdpwfxZdQ+1YvRkWab8L6LucS9wdF2Uvvd7Dxuw bauy/4Z9Y4aQkcGBNEvvQolASyyl2sCA3LgCN0oSHsafhhZ3zNSZuS4FM0MaALQR UmB2Vdxr2VuAW0Wfz8t0CHo/38DeYANHsf9zchLxnxCv41aX9k4WzqeC7p8E75JY IjV3jP98X6lNCsHOqubcHmp5wQWoK/QLqB8UIihkoOGh6vSIxSNZ007HbE5DPxmz DgMtj6lma4HbgY8e7UpRtTbWuyQoxvKnUM+9PWizHSwZNPc5ZFj6HWNBhlGbqa9w BjDGeG9ZOXl4nczGJgYMc79fkbxd6SbbPwkha1sOou5PChP3r/2egn5Q6u32mM13 uiaGZ6kz2xVTYuDsCRjfP1DNVZIbEst+8cgx1ezefqj+vK7mYDiQunHi2EVflBpq AZrveJ4stl66d3NbngPtvhP90bLBsFfSV7ayTnl18OtINRU5Gg4tQDSziHa+LRNb 2y++9/VX4rfqW6JQCW9hZ9gw+yEA898ZvNP0kOu7GfoRy41oUWiqyodKXgrsggEn 3tIhlEwS+q51GzrNlS1SUs85nzIYxySl+5Tv0ZWjhMKZFGlMqao8JMCr6Jvus3ma SMSqCiEpxBOWCSAdCrQi+Sz5OsnIoIE1o/oXLEkZVgAVYq6fJUY/XDXgdnSp3c9E 3yuZ4Bc9WeBojjIJrvDM42RkyPlyUdU8jw5FIOHIpv3CFFehuu54FHMgwXBB5Ln7 /a5gonxh1AjIMr6cKrH/Vtkb2YqKOQ69m4Pb82iMDHyzcSA27NP7C/1ad7PqvCOq qZa3iHzByM44pMMbTGmKZgH/noiYFNWTskgb4EIFK7WmoHjxN+xJ+TBzuMr9+F5e DOWudc2bVNsKe090dgbRozOVvCV+HEAaWargg6M/AKXp3/sIGG/u6n1ovil70Yop c+Z0z+eAUZBw1YqtKVjHm6G5yp30SZWwgEvTSS1u6qose8Gjb6cCj6BHJJ0yjEsy i3bt1g0LhgS5SLZNZVNM21G0vXmUqrrwHFtDXZvRwRVIpjAdlgK/OL93hevhFrjW MazucDl4Y8d/6LkCjqrd8Sx3hfXKOYp9TGpQimj67yulH6RV7cgrrlBbiXAjV/I+ Dq82oiC2ZN1iEf3UMjf4LGkLITMn8mmPXcrhrEySVbnb4byYqFeGkVeGXH25p3aM TSpYut4KLY2zAYaC0Jv7yM3EkGJyUxX6lJYvcccgE3ERt8Gv8fAHplqz6j1tJvow GYt+JZ21HUmmBVcOVYTjN2GcKVZ3ZbnaxTTBsy/4gSTQFLbmEIPgxEPP57eLEZAp cHtp10THUnI54hT2gXn8s7zos2hPZjLxcoE/5KLabpEfWk9Zhz+OmdUgLlPCtOhF J7TmP8uT9wQew83Gh+X3vbQTADjTHBcNCeX7jrIAIW17qrn3ZJMf8rRl9OxyLuJH YTQOMV4slvjNM236YJskuobVUrQ+HGQROIpTh+sBoz/gm8Z8KiT83nGRhfLyq+8c RgrjWx/ll795fivAH9tJM1l+yzx73TODjeg4gybwuCEwXkQ2b43+I//I5hobPNf0 QXq5RMDA3DQp7CgG7LCn9T2sEPRb0e0qNDOWNhEI31cbbOuztlTGNZCuPQWjZiea 9aE48+rz8jTdZ2gNhnBdZH+S9Ogy4tnm5byftsuvIQM4pnr8VrlqobfFmtFLwmA8 cDTV/vqEGbgxc+yrvyFvUVYaEEzf8UTcv9ojZCrSyCtj+HKOZ0rLU89Zdgb/NTHc NxDby77auJjXIcmci4ozaT5UupshZrFxPZvpT8YeXsmdb01gItWcFExlS/xKHJjf qszc0JJZAkkO2OE/9XC5nsD87sY9YLngRDmL8zghHNDbd9oZW2jZtQYJHyRzOioN eEjQi/Nmo3mFPFyk4CSBdFsium8f8P/uS0/5YKUSLi15gX7sBWcTO/fS/uiczTAt Oph2XXDTJIUs+R9T8O2cG2ei7Us/T+RV5UplrH/vHfYHT7t1Hwc3xN6ifuSPysTL w6h7M2X0rls+jH8h1uAPyjd84zGPm1LLfPLjYU816uP7mlVFAnGI7poE2YwMG+im qx83UDfn8o9DaHcbQt9yKa8uBzgxYLCSxaywIGmiItVHwJTUsy2A6chiQUiWbP8y iYifl7OyKHPo54I6pNGvo2p64y6w/DGiajtqpf7rvCFP82LjolePJQ1JvCmBw2iW cyJuYIoY3NptDQQ2L6EH+EvZ/G1Ur0VMk/rqZhZn8jylj4JtyH0bwY81FEkJwiFd l5MZIqktaCoGczLULp1mGL6fdPKJwFMfZO652NNW4Apar6KCbJ0NFxj+TIsD9K44 9Tw9M/nuVZLaFLEG1b/2YykBoece5l7Qe1NgVClh2IX9KXgcey6I9ncynpQOlzRI RTdbOCv0QmSStDZEEQRVEbKJjhsUjBasSsfC/mDF0wULL3QSxO3tjG5WS2kjitEb dWalZvMEBuuPgWDJmjkXei7sUS8FIwCYM7bm9JwnaMjZSR0PLEg/hU6rsN1NXR16 Pr1Wq2DD8wVLRxIocA1uKuTj8JB2n3vWd95+LMwwmwDIiKHUEtqO3Zs1sIgYO22S cMgti1cH6LhKRKtHoCOXs303j4H7j5RhRFVwaXeCw55Wb65Tsd7kKDyIpnGfu/jm ErbHXvspbHLTeXqk8nECcDiVhx5GademRQ7GRelWTH6G6pVg0gIKMfS87RyPa4TW cak7SCUPVBNsvEUaBP/gE9PIi8MR59fp/Bd/iObELu2aP9JNS2vp4Q+H8ZFbYOFb fvfInvB9aAVEnvivLvqlwoIjzK8jXwYcES5uBDh3Rb34TrMV132pYIGoh6HVKqM/ REmV2aQLHTwKHyJOG3PU/zpHDE/+A5ESSlPnHWrid2qir7P20rXyoShjPb9fs5Ut zWGhD7+pc49BIk6Fuz/v2GbATYFCREvn9PZpCZLWfiKgt7JrsArVl9opdPDqIwvW /bd4bep+LR2ueV6Jqc4nd1PItgo/rM60rg/QMUexMB7ZxIX0wsJRk5VauAdNg2Eo V30o9aQ1u6H8cJ7XgQ8Dck5pUAd5lgi3/oHsxeRWs0wlP5aGjiUXektRgHQbhSXN OEBffciGw1hziadZikL9ICmmPH8c+TBCMmI7Er2ooKR7OtJlDU6NMCxh1xZojnn8 3qDNpZ4cUPbGC7idJHlmqg9h7DqjKYgZEZTpn32dCGhwW+UOCjAuhKAPeBtMN93x w7H5n3Mr5s+sinBtdTkO5Hdnt/6LTb5ocpy0lXXhg9fM0mNX5i0ZASP6QAaL0qKG =XVfh -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --mXj6LbisV5KaKvN4ROvb0LBjH2ri6fCEK--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmfvh3$anm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90473 |
On 17/07/2016 13:50, Udyant Wig wrote: > > This is an encrypted OpenPGP message. > In order to decrypt this mail, you need to install an OpenPGP add-on > <https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/addon/enigmail/>. > > Can you post in plain text, please? You seem to be replying to my post but I've no idea what you said! Although I suspect that you disagreed... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 23:13 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <nmgg3n$1pi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90474 |
[A repost of an earlier article that also suffered from an incident with a GPG key.] On 07/17/2016 03:33 PM, BartC wrote: > When most people have the same subjective opinion, then perhaps it > isn't so subjective. > > Or do the majority really want to write (nth A i) instead of A[i]? What else do you like or dislike as per majority taste? > Great! Then they can dispose with the front-ends of most compilers and > just write in the intermediate code directly. No one has made this insane suggestion. You went from saying that Lisp is "what looks like some intermediate code of a compiler" to saying people can "dispose with the front-ends of most compilers and just write in the intermediate code directly." One doesn't yield the other. > What a waste of time providing a richer, higher level, more visually > distinctive syntax, when you can just use the monotonic style of Lisp > and still achieve the same productivity and readability. And many times obtain a gain in productivity and readability, while obviating having to deal with a complex syntax and the associated cognitive load. -- Udyant Wig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 20:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmghub$8gc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90477 |
Le 17/07/2016 à 19:43, Udyant Wig a écrit : > And many times obtain a gain in productivity and readability, while > obviating having to deal with a complex syntax and the associated > cognitive load. At school we learned how to read a+(b-5)/(c+47) Now... (/ (+ a (- b 5)) (+ c 47)) That obviously doesn't require any cognitive load to lisp heads of course. Other guys... well YMMV.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 20:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87inw4jcvz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90478 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > Le 17/07/2016 à 19:43, Udyant Wig a écrit : >> And many times obtain a gain in productivity and readability, while >> obviating having to deal with a complex syntax and the associated >> cognitive load. > > At school we learned how to read > > a+(b-5)/(c+47) But I think you misread it. > Now... > > (/ (+ a (- b 5)) (+ c 47)) You mean (+ a (/ (- b 5) (+ c 47))) The advantage of the Lisp notation is you can see the head operation at once: you had a divide and original is clearly not a division of two things but a sum. > That obviously doesn't require any cognitive load to lisp heads of > course. You had to parse the precedence and associativity of the original. You don't have to do that with the Lisp form. > Other guys... well YMMV. Yes, MMDV, quite a lot. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmgn93$r77$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90480 |
On 17/07/2016 20:14, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > >> Le 17/07/2016 à 19:43, Udyant Wig a écrit : >>> And many times obtain a gain in productivity and readability, while >>> obviating having to deal with a complex syntax and the associated >>> cognitive load. >> >> At school we learned how to read >> >> a+(b-5)/(c+47) > > But I think you misread it. > >> Now... >> >> (/ (+ a (- b 5)) (+ c 47)) > > You mean > > (+ a (/ (- b 5) (+ c 47))) > > The advantage of the Lisp notation is you can see the head operation at > once: you had a divide and original is clearly not a division of two > things but a sum. > >> That obviously doesn't require any cognitive load to lisp heads of >> course. > > You had to parse the precedence and associativity of the original. But where does the original come from? It won't necessarily start off in the same form as it has to be written in Lisp. If I'm implementing a formula from a text-book, it will almost certainly be in standard school notation. In that case, the parsing does need to be done to transform it into Lisp form, but not with a conventional syntax. There was a reason why there was all that effort to create Fortran in the 1950s. And Fortran likes a+(b-5)/(c+47). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87a8hg3uhg.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #90480 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> That obviously doesn't require any cognitive load to lisp heads of >> course. > > You had to parse the precedence and associativity of the original. You > don't have to do that with the Lisp form. Yes, but we've all been able to do the former since we were 9 years old. This is not a point that should be elided over. For example, that's the reason we're currently conversing in English, not Lojban. Lisp, like Lojban, may be more suitable of certain types of parsing - particularly by a machine - but that's not always the point, is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web