At least with }, ], and ) you know any given } matches a { and not a ( or a [. Whereas with all )'s, it's a lot harder (for me) to know which ( in a mountain of ('s it's going to match.
I have found the opposite. It's a lot easier to close with a bunch of )))s at the end of a line than to flip around with the )]}]))} line noise. I let my code's structure give me meaning. I am less concerned with matching things and more concerned with readable code arrangement. It is easier for me to read English-like words than a bunch of symbols. As a result, the ))s are almost equivalent whitespace with the exception that they provide useful and common structure.
And nested ), ), and ) are easier to pick apart visually?
You don't have to pick them out in CL, just balance them. Much easier (IMO).
Re:I Miss Lisp
by technomancy on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:18PM
(#1998051)
You don't have to pick them out or balance them in any lisp. That's what paredit is for.
Re:I Miss Lisp
by officemonkey on Monday December 13, 2010 @06:31AM
(#2000106)
So easy that a decent text editor can do the job.
And nested ), ), and ) are easier to pick apart visually?
At least with }, ], and ) you know any given } matches a { and not a ( or a [. Whereas with all )'s, it's a lot harder (for me) to know which ( in a mountain of ('s it's going to match.
A good editor and proper indenting will, of course, mitigate some of the pain. But I'd MUCH rather have a mix of {'s, ['s, and ('s, than all ('s.