From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:57:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87cyma5crl.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87sevj9b50.fsf@jeremybryant.net> <86h6bzqj2v.fsf@gnu.org> <87ed718o45.fsf@jeremybryant.net> <87le186g3f.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87ed6qbah6.fsf@dataswamp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1486"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:2d8x0xJRwrf0zffsCMKjbK/9X0k= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 15 12:33:05 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1seXmy-000087-Ha for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:33:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seXm8-0001pn-VZ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 06:32:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seXF7-00068i-VT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:58:07 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seXF5-0001X5-T3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:58:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1seXF0-00055S-Pl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:57:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 06:32:11 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322779 Archived-At: Madhu wrote: >>>>> Comprehension of the user's program reaches its greatest >>>>> heights for Lisp programs, because the simplicity of >>>>> Lisp syntax makes intelligent editing operations easier >>>>> to implement, while the complexity of other languages [...] >>>> >>>> Sorry, but we don't have _any_ of those advantages :) >>> >>> I believe elisp (and lisp) had those advantages when this >>> paper was written. What has chages is now the berated >>> complexity of other languages (including syntactic >>> elementss) have been dragged into elisp over the last >>> decade or two, (some of it through exploiting a notional >>> anti-common-lisp sentiment). While the basic sexp >>> structure sull seems the same, now to understand the >>> "modern code" you have to refer understand and familiarize >>> yourself and read documentation of the constructs in the >>> other languages before you can understand elisp. > > [oh wow did I actually write that word salad vomit?! > apologies for the atrocious proofing] No proof, method, or data to back anything up. Not then, not now. One should just accept that Lisp is the best programming language with no investigation required, case closed. >> I think this is typical for Lisp, it leads to complexity - >> more so than many other languages where you just add one >> more line to be executed. > > No I think just the number of functions is not a measure of > "bad" complexity", quite the opposited. ... but then one would expect to find almost anything of everything. And especially all _basic_ stuff. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal