Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 07:33:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <v91sce$3qo2d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me>
 <LISP-20240402085115@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <LISP-20240402091729@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <wrap-20240402092558@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <uui7hf$3gona$1@dont-email.me> <uuj1o5$3pvnq$1@dont-email.me>
 <87plv6jv1i.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <wwv5xwyifq8.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
 <if-20240404121825@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <uund4g$ugsb$1@dont-email.me>
 <uup8ul$1fr2t$1@dont-email.me>
 <indentation-20240405183703@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <v8sleh$1g9s4$1@dont-email.me> <v8ubtt$1u86k$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240807063938.329@kylheku.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:33:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0e794b04c607695cdc9239be1eb84eda";
	logging-data="4022349"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BrmNgJsjj4tEZropqg50Z"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:geRwCmBVDP1DsQfabp5lmEUm7wQ=
Bytes: 2352

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:43:10 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> boringly babbled:
>On 2024-08-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>>> 
>>>   (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
>>>                 (f (if g h i))
>>>                 (t j)))
>>
>> You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>>
>>     (setf a
>>         (cond
>>             (b
>>                 (if c d e)
>>             )
>>             (f
>>                 (if g h i)
>>             )
>>             (t
>>                 j
>>             )
>>         ) ; cond
>>     )
>
>Nobody is ever going to follow your idio(syncra)tic coding preferences
>for Lisp, that wouldn't pass code review in any Lisp shop, and result in
>patches being rejected in a FOSS setting.

I'm not a Lisp dev, but the original looks far more readable to me.
His definition of improvement seems to be obfuscation.