On Friday 14 November 2008 22:05, Mark H. wrote:
> On Nov 12, 5:52 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, I think that, if at all, we need a single set of macros. As far
> > as the IDEs are concerned, if we all try "inventing" our own (or
> > plugins for the existing ones), they will all be
On Nov 12, 5:52 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I think that, if at all, we need a single set of macros. As far as
> the IDEs are concerned, if we all try "inventing" our own (or plugins
> for the existing ones), they will all be half-done at best. It's
> better to focus on one project
On Nov 12, 4:47 am, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's "terse", and there's "concise". I know you're attempting humor, but
> IMO there's a difference between "association"/"assoc" and "assoc"/"a" in the
> amount of information being lost in each pair. Nothing stopping anybody from
On Nov 12, 2008, at 14:52, David wrote:
> That's why I put my "syntax" in quotes. From my chair having almost no
> syntax is a non-issue. I'd trade in syntax smallness for readability
> any time.
Taste and personal preference aside, one can ask the question what
you get and what you lose by ch
On Nov 12, 1:40 pm, "Michael Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your hypothetical IDE, could provide what you want whether or not
> longer aliases exist. There's nothing stopping someone from writing
> an IDE that converts aget to array-get or [] when it reads in a file
> and does the opposite wh
--- On Wed, 11/12/08, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right. We don't. Not only that. I can't think how aget
> instead of [] (and all the similar verbosity, as it were) fits
> into "Almost no syntax" and "Core advantage still code-as-data and
> syntactic abstraction" of the "Lisp is a
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 3:50 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > With this in mind it surprises me ( and disappoints a little ) that
>> > there are still abbreviated function names in many places - aget,
>> > aset, assoc, conj,
On Nov 10, 3:50 pm, Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With this in mind it surprises me ( and disappoints a little ) that
> > there are still abbreviated function names in many places - aget,
> > aset, assoc, conj, coll?, comp, and so on. Is there any need for
> > this in the 21st centur
> What does everyone else think?
I strongly prefer short names for frequently used functions/macros.
Short names often let you avoid to break a line of code, but they
could be quite cryptic. If they're used often, their meaning will
become obvious with time. It's not a problem if it's not immed
On Nov 11, 1:17 am, Albert Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps one way to do that would be to have a higher-order doc function,
> that replied with keywords belonging to it. For example, a mock-up call
> for "Maps":
>
> >>> (doc Maps)
>
> Maps are this and that, and can be manipulat
> Since I don't hear this argument too often, I image Clojure is
> striking an acceptable balance. What does everyone else think?
Totally agree.
See for example the extreme brevity of names in arc (Paul Graham's
hundred year language). Reading code in arc is very hard.
Longer names, like j
On Nov 10, 9:55 am, "Robert Lally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The current users of Clojure probably aren't representative of the
> development community as a whole. I'm not suggesting that they/we are better
> or worse than average. Just that early adopters are atypical, exemplified by
> the f
On Nov 10, 5:48 am, "Robert Lally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the many things that I really like about Clojure is that it abandoned
> Lisp tradition where it was pragmatic to do so. One of the prime examples
> for me was the use of first and rest rather than car and cdr.
To me that made
On Nov 10, 5:55 pm, "Robert Lally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course this is all predicated upon the creation of IDE tooling that is
> still very far away, so it is in many ways an argument based on a future
> which may never happen. I can see the value in optimising for now rather
> than the
I appreciate the answers that everyone has given to my post, and I thought
I'd send a single response before ceasing my bleating; I do realise that
this discussion has the potential to devolve into multiple different
religious wars, and I appreciate everyone's tolerance and forbearance so
far.
I th
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 10 November 2008 07:30, Daniel Renfer wrote:
>> There is one thing I would like to point out. My editor of choice,
>> (emacs) uses the length of the function name as a guide of where to
>> indent the next l
Oh dear. I'm sure I shouldn't be responding to this thread, yet here I am...
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What on Earth is an 80-character limit?
There are two main choices: some limit vs. no limit. With no limit,
everyone's got to have a wi
On Monday 10 November 2008 07:30, Daniel Renfer wrote:
> There is one thing I would like to point out. My editor of choice,
> (emacs) uses the length of the function name as a guide of where to
> indent the next line to in some situations. I find that in my code, I
> try to create functions that s
There is one thing I would like to point out. My editor of choice,
(emacs) uses the length of the function name as a guide of where to
indent the next line to in some situations. I find that in my code, I
try to create functions that say what I want to say without pushing
the body of my code too c
This is an argument that will probably go on for a long, long time, and
I wonder if it might have to do with the way that people think and
program. Personally, I tend to throw together lots of small experiments
in the process of developing, and being able to use short symbols for
common opera
+1 on existing names
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:50:12 -0500
Rich Hickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Robert Lally wrote:
>
> > One of the many things that I really like about Clojure is that it
> > abandoned Lisp tradition where it was pragmatic to do so. One o
I am in favor of the existing names. Things you use all the time
(like the core of a language) should be concise, things that you use
more rarely can have longer names.
That said, it would be pretty straightforward to alias longer names--
you could open source a humane_names.clj and let peo
On Nov 10, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Robert Lally wrote:
> One of the many things that I really like about Clojure is that it
> abandoned Lisp tradition where it was pragmatic to do so. One of the
> prime examples for me was the use of first and rest rather than car
> and cdr. Sure, I can read cod
One of the many things that I really like about Clojure is that it abandoned
Lisp tradition where it was pragmatic to do so. One of the prime examples
for me was the use of first and rest rather than car and cdr. Sure, I can
read code with car and cdr but it never really communicated that well; I
a
24 matches
Mail list logo
