From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: member returns list Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:23:57 +0200 Message-ID: <871te7jf4y.fsf@debian.uxu> References: <87bndfauey.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87wpw0e58f.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1441844690 2263 80.91.229.3 (10 Sep 2015 00:24:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:24:50 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 10 02:24:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZpfL-000406-S7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:24:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46196 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZpfG-0001JK-6U for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:24:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54907) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZpf5-0001J1-1p for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:24:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZpf1-0003WA-3j for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:24:23 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:46449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZpf0-0003Vl-Tv for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 20:24:19 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZZpet-0003Xv-2I for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:24:11 +0200 Original-Received: from nl106-137-244.student.uu.se ([130.243.137.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:24:11 +0200 Original-Received: from embe8573 by nl106-137-244.student.uu.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 02:24:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Lines: 47 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: nl106-137-244.student.uu.se Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2ttl5KQUNh6sL0E4XpkGVKPIbzg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:107106 Archived-At: Robert Thorpe writes: > Pascal criticizes early micro-processors for being > bad. But, to those who used them it was often > a choice of micro-processor or no processors at all. > In that situation compile-only languages with > a strong emphasis on efficiency (such as C) were the > natural choice. We're all in a different > situation now. I'm on Linux which is a C implementation of the UNIX C. I use the GNU implementation of the UNIX toolchain - all C (almost). Emacs is C (with Lisp on top of it). Apart from that I use zsh - C. And so on! Feel free to verify this with your most basic tools (e.g., ls(1)) - and up and until the superstar applications: Emacs, the shell, and so on! Try the command "get-command-source" from http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/.zsh/apt to get the source just by feeding command names (e.g., 'get-command-source ls' for ls). I prefer Lisp for several reasons: it is more advanced, no (re)compilation while debugging, no or much less bulky type work, the code gets more modular, no bulky header file work, much less error prone (no pointers and stuff like that), etc. etc. But that doesn't mean C is as bad as described. If I would use a compiled language for an application that needed it, I would use either C or C++. Those are just different mindsets than Lisp. I know from experience that Lisp, C++, and shell programming can be a killer combo in one and the same project. It all matters how you use them. If you do crazy OO inheritance stuff etc. in C++ then of course "C++" sucks. Stupid is as stupid does. It is not about that. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573