News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Nature of Lisp (2006). Parent comment

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by agumonkey on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @10:57AM (#9576732)
The mainstream may realize how syntax doesn't really matter. The FP push helps a lot already (map,filter,streamfusion instead of crazy for/while statements).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by AnimalMuppet on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @02:11PM (#9578073)
Why do you call for and while statements "crazy"? Because it's possible to write them wrong? Because you think it's crazy to have to write them at all? Why?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by agumonkey on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @02:25PM (#9578166)
> it's possible to write them wrong

too easy languages to conflate a lot of logic into large side effectful statements. FP forces you to separate layers, and deforestation (when available) helps reclaiming space/time costs.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by AnimalMuppet on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @04:26PM (#9579047)
All right, but "can be misused" is not the same as "crazy".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by agumonkey on Thursday May 21, 2015 @03:40AM (#9581432)
Alright, that was my own misunderstanding of loop invariants and scope showing. That gave opportunity for traumas when I started reading imperative code.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by spacemanmatt on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @11:16PM (#9580766)
Seems fair to assume pp calls them crazy because they don't compose.
[ Parent | on HN ]