▲ 516 ▼ You can pry pattern matching from my cold dead hands (sopuli.xyz) submitted 8 months ago by flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I imagine the tricky part for someone unfamiliar with Lisp would be that there's no syntactic clue that a particular thing is a macro or special form that's going to treat its arguments differently from a function call. Someone who knows Scheme may have never seen anything like CLOS, but would see from context that defmethod must not be a function. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) You don't even need to define a class to define methods. I'm sure that's surprising to people coming from today's popular language, but the original comment was about syntax. Whether Lisp syntax is ugly is a matter of taste, but it's objectively not unreadable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I imagine the tricky part for someone unfamiliar with Lisp would be that there's no syntactic clue that a particular thing is a macro or special form that's going to treat its arguments differently from a function call. Someone who knows Scheme may have never seen anything like CLOS, but would see from context that defmethod must not be a function. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) You don't even need to define a class to define methods. I'm sure that's surprising to people coming from today's popular language, but the original comment was about syntax. Whether Lisp syntax is ugly is a matter of taste, but it's objectively not unreadable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) You don't even need to define a class to define methods. I'm sure that's surprising to people coming from today's popular language, but the original comment was about syntax. Whether Lisp syntax is ugly is a matter of taste, but it's objectively not unreadable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago (1 child) You don't even need to define a class to define methods. I'm sure that's surprising to people coming from today's popular language, but the original comment was about syntax. Whether Lisp syntax is ugly is a matter of taste, but it's objectively not unreadable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 8 months ago In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages. permalink fedilink source parent