Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "B. Pym" <Nobody447095@here-nor-there.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Loop macro
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 03:20:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <vcle29$1fa1s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vcldb8$1f71r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 05:20:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2dce09030b16512dfbe240663cdf12c5";
	logging-data="1550396"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oPiW8eG21l8NOdvSyZ/Lc"
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.18.1.6
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mUrDGxNpi536I9OikAs6VzVfyGg=
Bytes: 4580

B. Pym wrote:

> Chris Riesbeck wrote:
> 
> > LOOP ... COLLECT vs. MAPCAR -- LAMBDA is a tie for me,
> > but if you want to collect only certain values, then
> > 
> >         (loop for x in l
> >               when <test x>
> >               collect x)
> > 
> > is hands-down clearer than
> > 
> >         (mapcan #'(lambda (x)
> >                     (when <test x> (list x)))
> >                 l)
> 
> 
> Why didn't the creature simply write "(lambda" instead
> of "#'(lambda"?
> 
> "(function (lambda ...)) is a pleonasm.  lambda is a macro that
> already expands to (function (lambda ...))."
> 
> Disciples of CL are the most mindless "programmers" on the
> planet.  Furthermore, they are very eager to make their
> code as ugly as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > while
> > 
> >         (remove-if-not #'(lambda (x) <test x>) l)
> 
> 
> Why didn't the creature simply write
> "(remove-if-not <test> l)"?
> 
> Disciples of CL are the most mindless "programmers" on the
> planet.  Furthermore, they are very eager to make their
> code as ugly as possible.
>   
> 
> 
> > 
> > is OK but that double-negative leaves me cold.
> 
> Gauche Scheme:
> 
> (filter odd? (liota 22))
>   ===>
> (1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21)
> 
> 
> See how much better it is when one uses a Lisp instead of
> CL (COBOL-Like)?
> 
> Paul Graham:
> 
> "The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp."
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Graham:
> 
> "Do you really think people in 1000 years want to be
> constrained by hacks that got put into the foundations of
> Common Lisp because a lot of code at Symbolics depended on
> it in 1988?"
> 
> Daniel Weinreb, 24 Feb 2003:
> 
> "Having separate 'value cells' and 'function cells' (to use
> the 'street language' way of saying it) was one of the most
> unfortunate issues. We did not want to break pre-existing
> programs that had a global variable named 'foo' and a global
> function named 'foo' that were distinct.  We at Symbolics
> were forced to insist on this, in the face of everyone's
> knowing that it was not what we would have done absent
> compatibility constraints. It's hard for me to remember all
> the specific things like this, but if we had had fewer
> compatibility issues, I think it would have come out looking
> more like Scheme in general."
> 
> Daniel Weinreb, 28 Feb 2003:
> 
> "Lisp2 means that all kinds of language primitives have to
> exist in two versions, or be parameterizable as to whether
> they are talking about the value cell or function cell. It
> makes the language bigger, and that's bad in and of itself."
> 
> Jeffrey M. Jacobs:
> 
> "The CL effort resembles a bunch of spoiled children,
> each insisting 'include my feature or I'll pull out, and
> then we'll all go down the tubes'.  Everybody had vested
> interests, both financial and emotional."
> 
> Jeffrey M. Jacobs:
> 
> "CL is a nightmare; it has effectively killed LISP
> development in this country.  It is not commercially viable
> and has virtually no future outside of the traditional
> academic/defense/research arena."
> 
> Bernard Lang:
> 
> "Common Lisp did kill Lisp. Period. (just languages take a
> long time dying ...) It is to Lisp what C++ is to C.  A
> monstrosity that totally ignores the basics of language
> design, simplicity and orthogonality to begin with."





Don Geddis wrote

> I don't know about you, but it's _much_ easier for me to understand this
> oh-so-common idiom with the extended loop:
> 
>         (loop for x in *big-list*
>               collect (1+ x) )

Why not:

(mapcar '1+ '(200 300 400 500))
  ===>
(201 301 401 501)