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 >
