▲ 372 ▼ Anon died on the "clang format bad" hill (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 week ago by danhab99@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 564 comments fedilink hide all child comments Mine is that the useState hook is an actual plague on the entire React ecosystem. Regardless of your opinions of React, if you wanna use something then use it right.
[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (3 children) So any untyped S-expression grammar would be acceptable? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] littleomid@feddit.org 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) What are you trying to ask? It kind of feels like arguing with someone who’s trying to just find one mistake to say “aha!”. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) I am just trying to get a feel for the boundaries of what you consider a Lisp. (Started by trying to narrow by named lisps, then common major dividing features and am now trying to use broader syntax categories). So no argument, just honest curiosity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] littleomid@feddit.org 1 point 6 days ago In short, homoiconicity, a function type, expression based programming, a symbol type, and having no distinction between read, run and compile-time. If it looks like a lisp and sounds like a lisp, then it’s a lisp. All languages you mentioned are lisps. So is Clojure, Elisp, MacLisp etc etc. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] littleomid@feddit.org 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) What are you trying to ask? It kind of feels like arguing with someone who’s trying to just find one mistake to say “aha!”. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) I am just trying to get a feel for the boundaries of what you consider a Lisp. (Started by trying to narrow by named lisps, then common major dividing features and am now trying to use broader syntax categories). So no argument, just honest curiosity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] littleomid@feddit.org 1 point 6 days ago In short, homoiconicity, a function type, expression based programming, a symbol type, and having no distinction between read, run and compile-time. If it looks like a lisp and sounds like a lisp, then it’s a lisp. All languages you mentioned are lisps. So is Clojure, Elisp, MacLisp etc etc. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) I am just trying to get a feel for the boundaries of what you consider a Lisp. (Started by trying to narrow by named lisps, then common major dividing features and am now trying to use broader syntax categories). So no argument, just honest curiosity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] littleomid@feddit.org 1 point 6 days ago In short, homoiconicity, a function type, expression based programming, a symbol type, and having no distinction between read, run and compile-time. If it looks like a lisp and sounds like a lisp, then it’s a lisp. All languages you mentioned are lisps. So is Clojure, Elisp, MacLisp etc etc. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] littleomid@feddit.org 1 point 6 days ago In short, homoiconicity, a function type, expression based programming, a symbol type, and having no distinction between read, run and compile-time. If it looks like a lisp and sounds like a lisp, then it’s a lisp. All languages you mentioned are lisps. So is Clojure, Elisp, MacLisp etc etc. permalink fedilink source parent