From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Madhu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Emacs website, Lisp, and other Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:47:32 +0530 Message-ID: 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="5599"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:BeuBydgBvs0mRNdJeS5n7QUbK0o= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 15 11:32:53 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 1seWqi-0001KM-K3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:32:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1seWqQ-00069c-R7; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:32:34 -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 1seWcc-0007su-PZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:18:19 -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 1seWcX-0004A5-SZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:18:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1seWcV-0006tu-A7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:18:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ 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: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:32:20 -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:322776 Archived-At: * Emanuel Berg <87ed6qbah6.fsf@dataswamp.org> : Wrote on Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:50:45 +0200: > 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] > 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. since a function is an abstraction that can be understood on itself, and in terms of other abstractions if needed -- as long as all follow the same pattern, as the upanishadic dictum states "that by which all things are understood" -- my complaint would apply more to things like using cl-defmethod (without a spec) and other constructs that cannot be understood by merely reading, and involve learning some fp theory and syntax, and require the explicit tracing of execution - when encoutering a bug - which becomes near impossible with lexically compiled code.