Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re (tilly) 3: Lisp is More Evaluatable

by hding (Chaplain)
on May 24, 2001 at 20:15 UTC ( [id://82981]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re (tilly) 3: Lisp is More Evaluatable
in thread Lisp is More Evaluatable

Probably we more or less agree, but have different ways of expressing what we mean. Graham is good, but I think it's dangerous to rely too much on what he says. Just as an example, he seems to have a disdain for the loop macro that just isn't shared by the community at large, and if unduly under his influence one might neglect to use it even in situations where it's clearly the easiest and best solution. But (like Perl) there's room enough in Lisp for everyone, at least IMHO. :-)

One should be careful about relying on tail recursion being optimized in Common Lisp, too. The spec doesn't require it (unlike Scheme which does). I think most implementations will do it under certain but not all circumstances. For example, in the one I use, you need to have debug set below 3 in the code to be compiled. I don't have a good enough sense of history to speculate whether this is because of or the cause of Common Lispers being a lot more willing to iterate than Schemers.

  • Comment on Re: Re (tilly) 3: Lisp is More Evaluatable

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://82981]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-07-17 19:59 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?
    erzuuli‥ 🛈The London Perl and Raku Workshop takes place on 26th Oct 2024. If your company depends on Perl, please consider sponsoring and/or attending.