Re:Why Lisp?
by joonoro on Friday May 08, 2015 @01:08PM
(#9512821)
>When reading other people's code you now effectively have to learn what "language" they use too.
Paul Graham addressed this in On Lisp (page 59) [0]:
>So yes, reading a bottom-up program requires one to understand all the new
>operators defined by the author. But this will nearly always be less work than
>having to understand all the code that would have been required without them.
>If people complain that using utilities makes your code hard to read, they
>probably don’t realize what the code would look like if you hadn’t used them.
>Bottom-up programming makes what would otherwise be a large program look
>like a small, simple one. This can give the impression that the program doesn’t
>do much, and should therefore be easy to read. When inexperienced readers look
>closer and find that this isn’t so, they react with dismay.
>We find the same phenomenon in other fields: a well-designed machine may
>have fewer parts, and yet look more complicated, because it is packed into a
>smaller space. Bottom-up programs are conceptually denser. It may take an effort
>to read them, but not as much as it would take if they hadn’t been written that way.
Paul Graham addressed this in On Lisp (page 59) [0]:
>So yes, reading a bottom-up program requires one to understand all the new >operators defined by the author. But this will nearly always be less work than >having to understand all the code that would have been required without them. >If people complain that using utilities makes your code hard to read, they >probably don’t realize what the code would look like if you hadn’t used them.
>Bottom-up programming makes what would otherwise be a large program look >like a small, simple one. This can give the impression that the program doesn’t >do much, and should therefore be easy to read. When inexperienced readers look >closer and find that this isn’t so, they react with dismay.
>We find the same phenomenon in other fields: a well-designed machine may >have fewer parts, and yet look more complicated, because it is packed into a >smaller space. Bottom-up programs are conceptually denser. It may take an effort >to read them, but not as much as it would take if they hadn’t been written that way.
[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html