Peter Denno writes: > Hi Pascal, > > OK I've read it. So what's your point? (Don't send me to another wandering > reference). In fact YOU are saying just what I said: "I'm just 'inventing' a > language for the domain"
Well, I thought the newsgroup thread was clear about it. He started from pseudocode not written by himself, and wrote lisp functions and macros to make this pseudocode be compiled and run in lisp. So obviously, saying that lisp doesn't map well to pseudo-code (be it in non-lispers head or not) is wrong. On the contrary, you couldn't do the same in any other programming language, so I'd say that lisp is the best programming language there is to map from pseudo-code. > Let's start again. Do you think people brought up on C/Java syntax have lisp > pseudo-code in their heads? There is pseudo-code, and there is C and there is Java and there is lisp. There is no lisp-pseudo-code. And any pseudocode can be executed in lisp, just writing the needed lisp reader macros, lisp macros and lisp functions. > Or are you saying that the lisp form is easier to read? No. > [...] Most programmers have about three > tools in their heads: iteration, conditionals, and function calls. So I have > argued that they find it difficult to read code which uses additional > abstractions. They aren't familiar with the idea of having syntactic > abstractions. Well, this is not what I understood from your pseudo-code sentence. Of course, I could agree that if someone hasn't got a notion used in a lisp program he'd have a difficulty to read that lisp program: he'd have first to understand the notion. (But he may learn it from reading the program along perhaps some lisp reference). Anyways, I don't see how this would be relevant to write only. You're saying that it can't be read by people who can't understand it, but they wouldn't be able to write it either! People who can write lisp can read it without any problem. > PS I think the term "runnable pseudocode" gives a silly name to a common > practice, thus making it sound as ludicrous as "sofware through pictures." > > > Peter Denno writes: > > On Sunday 25 June 2006 13:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Re: Possible FAQ question: The myth about Lisp code being > > > 'write only' (Larry Clapp > > > > I've heard it. And even if I hadn't I think it's worth some consideration. > > IMO, part of the problem is that lisp doesn't map well to the pseudo-code > > that most non-lispers have in their heads. [...] > > Lies, lies and lies! > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/a069a16ba3db003e/69bc8553f562cc30?lnk=st&q=pseudocode++group%3Acomp.lang.lisp&rnum=1&hl=en#69bc8553f562cc30 > > > The kernel of truth is that it is possible with lisp to use macro's so > > heavily > > that it is hard to adjust to someone else's code. > > Lies, lies and lies! See above link again. > > > [...] -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: The manufacturer may technically be entitled to claim that this product is ten-dimensional. However, the consumer is reminded that this confers no legal rights above and beyond those applicable to three-dimensional objects, since the seven new dimensions are "rolled up" into such a small "area" that they cannot be detected. _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
