Henrik Sarvell <hsarv...@gmail.com>
writes:

> 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?

There are more than enough reasons to find PicoLisp interesting, and you
mentioned a few. I'm only saying that the documentation string for each
function in elisp is kind of helpfull, and so are the 'speaking''
function names, although they do seem comically long sometimes. 

> 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.

I think in this case it would even be possible to 'eat your cake and
have it', at least when using PicoLisp mode in Emacs. There might be a way to
stick to PicoLisp minimalism, but have some documentation conventions
with very little extra effort. Having more time now, I'll give it a try,
but I'm not sure if my elisp is good enough to succeed. 

Cheers
Thorsten


> 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

-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to