| It's really fun: I read so many propaganda on Lisp here that by now we should all be coding in it. Don't we get perhaps weekly posts like this? But ... somehow almost everyone simply ignores this propaganda --- that's actually the way we ought to handle propaganda! Funny that it works with Lisp, but not with many political topics where it can be shown that propaganda really works. My experience with Lisp is somewhat special-cornered. I only know Emacs-Lisp, and that not great. And for me, Lisp an out, outdated and confusing thing. I don't know ANY other programming language that elected assembler mnemonics to be "high"-level expression: car and cdr. While I love Emacs, they claim all the time that is has 100% discovery through build in doc. But that is only 70% true. It doesn't exist in Lisp like it does in other languages. For example, I have an association list. Now, what functions exist that uses them? I can't use the equivalent for (dir alist), alist.dir(), or use some LSP for that. I can't even look in the symbols, because operators are written like assoc or assq with not logic. And then there are either prefixes to them (rassoc) or postfixes (assoc-string). That there is no namespace is soooo 1970. I mean, even Turbo-Pascal had namespaces. Typechecking is nonexistant. At least we have byte-compiling. And note that I don't croak about the parenthesis. While I find it mildy weird that I as a human program in almost-AST, Emacs has superp support for the parenthesis. So people croaking about them just had never had a good editor IMHO. Now, one can argue that Emacs Lisp != Common Lisp. But these propaganda articles don't tend to promote one specific Lisp, they only talk in generals. So I can apply this general principle and compare it to the tiny corner of these awful language family. |