> >> Lisp is essentially a functional language. > > > > People keep saying that but Emacs Lisp and Common Lisp are really > > multi-paradigm languages (Common Lisp more so). > > Yeah, I know. But I think the 'essence' of the language is more > functional, really. Even 'functional' is used pretty loosely, though. > I was aiming for a broad stereotype. Not like me. Usually I'm horribly > pedantic. > > I should get around to learning some Lisp properly. It's somewhat on my > "I'm not all that interested" language list because of the syntax, > though; like Perl. A bit too flexible for my liking, as it can lead a > bit too easily to sloppy programs. And I've never been all that good at > counting parentheses! > > Mind you, at least the syntax itself it is absolutely consistent. > Comparatively, Vimscript is a mess!
I'll bite. One of the most important aspects of a programming or scripting language is that it's easy to read back. Only then can one figure out what it's doing exactly and easily spot mistakes. Both Perl and Lisp fail miserably on this aspect. Unfortunately, programmers are proud of creating something that other people have a hard time figuring out what it does. It's like a priest talking latin, it sets them apart from the crowd. -- Married is a three ring circus: First comes the engagement ring. Then comes the wedding ring. Then comes the suffering. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
