Re:Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming langu...
by brlewis on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @08:07PM
(#39377868)
With Rust do you close all your } manually? Do you have an example of Rust code where the equivalent Lisp code would be harder to parse, assuming equal familiarity with both languages?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming langu...
by HexDecOctBin on Wednesday February 14, 2024 @11:59PM
(#39379289)
> With Rust do you close all your } manually?
You don't have to, because you don't end up with }}}}}}}}} in Rust, because statements end with ; and not }.
Re:Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming langu...
by brlewis on Thursday February 15, 2024 @08:04AM
(#39382170)
I didn't end up with ))))))))) in Scheme because it was easy to create smaller functions. I do see rust ending with
}
}
}
In TypeScript I'll often find myself ending blocks of code with });
}
});
}
I'm having fun with TS, but I do miss the parentheses. They were simpler.
Re:Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming langu...
by HexDecOctBin on Thursday February 15, 2024 @09:36AM
(#39383175)
1. Lots of small functions lead to code in which bugs often hide in plain sight, see this old memo by John Carmack: http://number-none.com/blow/john_carmack_on_inlined_code.htm...
2. Scheme is better than Common Lisp when it comes to Lots of Irritating Superfluous Parenthesis, since declaring a variable in Scheme (using 'define') doesn't create a new nesting like it does in Common Lisp (using 'let').
Re:Why is Common Lisp not the most popular programming langu...
by IshKebab on Thursday February 15, 2024 @09:35AM
(#39383160)
I do, but there are about 4x fewer }'s in Rust than there are )'s in Lisp.
Look at these: