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:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:email@example.com?subject=Unsubscribe