|
|
|
|
|
by lanstin
1544 days ago
|
|
Still the average function written by a smart lisp programmer is going to make me sigh, take three deep breathes, and set aside some time to focus, while the average function by a smart Go programmer, I can just read. This readability loss does counteract the ability to reload forms into a running core. Especially now when i am trying so hard to make everything running be immutable and derived from various git repos. |
|
Similarly, if you're working by yourself, or in a team with shared norms, you care far less about average function written by a random smart Lisp/Haskell/C++/Perl programmer, and more about what (a) you/your team writes and (b) the ergonomics of the language itself.
In fact, I argue that Lisp is slightly better than the above languages because much of its fanciness comes from macros, which you can trivially expand inline to simplify the code - which you can't do with fancy category theory constructs in Haskell, and is only barely possible with boost:: templates in C++, for instance.
(that isn't to say that I disagree with your point "the average function written by a smart lisp programmer..." - I completely agree with your assessment, I just don't think it's either as big of a problem as it could be, nor is it unique to Lisps)