I can understand both your arguments Thorsten but in the end there must've
been a reason why you found PicoLisp interesting enough that you wanted to
try it out as opposed to using elisp/common lisp for everything.

Perhaps it was the brevity and clarity of syntax, the minimalism?

I can tell you this, I didn't go for PicoLisp because it enabled me to write
"packages" with the help of function names of the form foo.bar.func.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Thorsten <quintf...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Jakob Eriksson <ja...@vmlinux.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:51:32PM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> >> Having to write the full name all the time could easily become
> >> comical, as in my above Clojure example. This is also one of the
> >> reasons I have leaned towards
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Imagine all the rants which could be made about code full of both
> > parens AND ultralong function names. :-)
> Hi Jakob,
> from my 'innocent' newbie perspective to both, PicoLisp and Emacs Lisp,
> I can report that ultralong function names and straight documentation
> conventions in Emacs Lisp helped me _a lot_ in understanding elisp source
> code,
> even without full understanding of the language, while lack of
> documentation (except for the core functions) and cryptically short
> functions names do represent an obstacle when trying to understand
> Picolisp source code.
> Imho, this is one topic were Picolisp could improve by copying some
> habits from the Emacs Lisp community.
> And, with an editor like Emacs, those ultralong function names are not as
> impracticable as one would think.
> Cheers
> Thorsten
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to