Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Panicz Maciej Godek (paniczgodek@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 00:39:02 JST Panicz Maciej Godek

   If you pronounce (+ 2 3) as "the sum of two and three" rather than "plus two three", it makes much more sense.

   Follow me for more tips like this.

   #Lisp #Scheme #Clojure #programming

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 00:39:57 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     @PaniczGodek Thought you said #Lisp, how is it related to #Clojure or #Scheme? :blobsweats:

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 01:14:09 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • Daniel Kochmański

     @jackdaniel I know, that is sorta the very subtle point.

     The arguments what is more Lisp, or less or if hygienic macros are better than non-hygienic , if pure functional is better than imperative, ITERATE vs LOOP vs DOTIMES vs DO ... recursive ..

     It is all bullshit, sometimes the hammer is the best screwdriver but you lack it, you cannot solve your problem.

     @PaniczGodek

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel Kochmański (jackdaniel@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 01:14:12 JST Daniel Kochmański

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt

     @amszmidt @PaniczGodek name gatekeeping did more harm than good to lisp community, just saying.

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 01:20:44 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     • Daniel Kochmański

     @jackdaniel It is not, in any sense of the word. You cannot run a trivial (Common, Zeta, MAC, Inter ...) Lisp program in Scheme. The semantics are plenty different that I think, truly, that it is useful and even important to differentiate Scheme and Lisp (which is different from one being better or worse .. they are both nice languages!)

     I sometimes troll that PHP is a C since .. for many trivial programs, you need to change less than between Scheme and Lisp.

     @PaniczGodek

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel Kochmański (jackdaniel@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 01:20:46 JST Daniel Kochmański

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt

     @amszmidt @PaniczGodek such disputes are silly and I like Common Lisp better than others, but "a lisp" refers to many languages and I'd wager an opinion that Common Lisp is closer semantically and functionally to r6rs than LISP 1.5

   • Embed this notice
     Panicz Maciej Godek (paniczgodek@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 01:27:32 JST Panicz Maciej Godek

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt

     @amszmidt right, so the difference is that while in Lisp and Scheme you'd pronounce (* 2 3) as "the product of two and three", in Clojure you'd rather say "projuct"

   • Embed this notice
     Alfred M. Szmidt (amszmidt@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 01:27:48 JST Alfred M. Szmidt

     in reply to

     @PaniczGodek 🤣

   • Embed this notice
     Panicz Maciej Godek (paniczgodek@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 03:43:28 JST Panicz Maciej Godek

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Daniel Kochmański

     @amszmidt

     as a schemer, I tried reading both Maclisp and Interlisp, and my experience is that I find Maclisp fairly understandable (and relatively close in spirit to Scheme), whereas I couldn't understand almost anything from Interlisp, and their spirits felt far apart.

     In the incidental interview I made a year ago with Bernard Greenberg (who wrote Multics Emacs in Maclisp, after all), he called Scheme "Sussman and Steele’s much-improved Lisp"

     @jackdaniel

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel Kochmański (jackdaniel@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 13:27:21 JST Daniel Kochmański

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Weekend Editor

     @PaniczGodek @weekend_editor @amszmidt

     DO is a syntactic sugar for tail recursion. I've even made a short blog post about it:

     https://turtleware.eu/posts/How-do-you-DO-when-you-do-DO.html

   • Embed this notice
     Panicz Maciej Godek (paniczgodek@functional.cafe)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 13:27:22 JST Panicz Maciej Godek

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Weekend Editor
     • Daniel Kochmański

     @weekend_editor

     Good question

     I think that Norvig's PAIP code is generally good (although IMO it's nicer when rewritten to Scheme), but I find CLOS-heavy code more difficult to digest.

     I find that Common Lisp in general has some 'ancient' vibe, which I don't necessarily like. I much prefer Scheme's recursive functions, named let and map/filter/append-map to CL's loop macro, dolist etc.

     (Scheme also has the CL-like "do" syntax that I don't understand, and don't want to understand)

     There are some things though that are tragic in Scheme (like records and modules) thar are at least acceptable in Common Lisp.

     @amszmidt @jackdaniel

     Alfred M. Szmidt repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Weekend Editor (weekend_editor@mathstodon.xyz)'s status on Friday, 16-May-2025 13:27:23 JST Weekend Editor

     in reply to

     • Alfred M. Szmidt
     • Daniel Kochmański

     @PaniczGodek @amszmidt @jackdaniel

     How are you with reading Common Lisp?