Newest at the top
| 2025-03-17 18:19:33 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Aren't list/apply semantics the point of lisp? |
| 2025-03-17 18:19:32 +0100 | <EvanR> | like there is overlap in the ideas somehow |
| 2025-03-17 18:19:31 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-03-17 18:19:23 +0100 | <EvanR> | that sometimes a macro would work when a function would work is interesting to me |
| 2025-03-17 18:18:57 +0100 | ski | would dispute the antecedent of the implication |
| 2025-03-17 18:18:03 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-4b74-b88c-ff83-9891-e272.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-03-17 18:17:54 +0100 | <c_wraith> | I think a better criticism is the loop macro's existence |
| 2025-03-17 18:17:48 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-4b74-b88c-ff83-9891-e272.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-03-17 18:17:47 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> if ergonomic macros are the point of lisp, it's a very bad sign when lisp programmers state "never use a macro when a function will do" |
| 2025-03-17 18:17:31 +0100 | acidjnk | (~acidjnk@p200300d6e71c4f06a07cb2b65789c630.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-03-17 18:16:59 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> the criticism i read was that abuse of macros leads to dsl / edsl disease, where the codebase is too tightly coupled to its developers |
| 2025-03-17 18:15:52 +0100 | <ski> | may i interest you in our lord and saviour, hygienic macros, Liamzee ? |
| 2025-03-17 18:15:12 +0100 | <mauke> | which is closer to the way (list list) looks (i.e. no sigils) |
| 2025-03-17 18:15:02 +0100 | <mauke> | in 'say STDOUT STDOUT', the first STDOUT refer to the IO slot, the second to the CODE slot |
| 2025-03-17 18:14:10 +0100 | <c_wraith> | I remember basic used sigils to identify the types of variables. But the way in which it did so always made more sense to me. |
| 2025-03-17 18:14:03 +0100 | <mauke> | sub STDOUT { "hello" } say STDOUT STDOUT; |
| 2025-03-17 18:13:17 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Liamzee> afaik lisp is about macro programming, except that macro programming has been demonstrated to be a bad idea in many implementations |
| 2025-03-17 18:12:47 +0100 | <c_wraith> | I mean, except insofar as the way perl uses those contexts makes no sense. |
| 2025-03-17 18:12:26 +0100 | <c_wraith> | Oh, yeah. I just actually got around to reading the code portion and it made a lot more sense. |
| 2025-03-17 18:12:01 +0100 | <mauke> | $foo is a scalar, @foo an array, %foo a hash, etc |
| 2025-03-17 18:11:39 +0100 | <mauke> | a perl symbol has several different "slots", including SCALAR, ARRAY, HASH, CODE, IO, and FORMAT |
| 2025-03-17 18:11:37 +0100 | <geekosaur> | parentetical purity was already destroyed by interlisp, that horse escaped the barn a long time ago 😛 |
| 2025-03-17 18:11:01 +0100 | <mauke> | ok, you got me :-) |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:52 +0100 | <EvanR> | I'd say it's a much as joke as lisp-2 is |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:41 +0100 | <EvanR> | oh |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:39 +0100 | <mauke> | I didn't use /g! |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:29 +0100 | <EvanR> | I'd say it's a much a joke a lisp-2 is xD |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:09 +0100 | <mauke> | s/ as / a / |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:04 +0100 | <ski> | presumably six separate namespaces, c_wraith |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:02 +0100 | <mauke> | c_wraith: I'd say it's as much as joke as lisp-2 is |
| 2025-03-17 18:09:55 +0100 | <EvanR> | yes clojure ruins the parenthetical purity |
| 2025-03-17 18:09:41 +0100 | <ski> | (and, i think, Clojure too, with semantic difference ?) |
| 2025-03-17 18:09:24 +0100 | <ski> | Racket already embraces different brackets, albeit only as a stylistic choice |
| 2025-03-17 18:08:59 +0100 | <c_wraith> | lisp-6 is something I recognize as a joke (lisp-1 vs lisp-2), but I have no idea if it means something specific |
| 2025-03-17 18:08:48 +0100 | <EvanR> | different bracket syntax would disturb the parenthetical purity of the lisp syntax |
| 2025-03-17 18:08:25 +0100 | <ski> | (or `$(bar [e| foo |])' or somesuch, perchance) |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:46 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:31 +0100 | <ski> | yes |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:19 +0100 | <ski> | it's correct that you can't just replace `foo' by its definition in `(bar foo)', if `bar' is a macro, which could lead one to want to use e.g. a different bracket syntax for special forms and macro invokations, than for procedure calls |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:09 +0100 | <mauke> | in a lisp-6 like perl, sub list($list, @list) { my %list = map +($_ => $list), @list; \%list } is perfectly cromulent code |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:03 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-03-17 18:05:45 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-03-17 18:05:09 +0100 | <ski> | even without macros, things tend to need to be interpreted in context. `(a,b)' in an expression context, means something else than in a type context. in one context `Foo' could be a module, while in another it could be a type constructor, or a data constructor in yet another. in Lisp-2's, like Common Lisp, `(lambda (list) (list list))' is a procedure constructing a singleton list from its input argument |
| 2025-03-17 18:04:10 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) |
| 2025-03-17 18:03:56 +0100 | jespada | (~jespada@2800:a4:22cd:2500:4d25:68ba:28dd:cc11) jespada |
| 2025-03-17 18:03:52 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-138-112.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-03-17 18:02:17 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d108-173-18-100.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:44 +0100 | <EvanR> | "let over lambda" my ass |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:29 +0100 | target_i | (~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) target_i |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | but it's a lisp weenie! |