Read on Twitter
The more symbols/operators/expressive forms you add to a programming language the harder it is to define a rigorous style guide. There's corresponging difficulties with automatic layout and linting.
Interesting how these little snippets of 'elegance' are chaotic in combination.
Interesting how these little snippets of 'elegance' are chaotic in combination.
Not exactly a subtweet of recent #rstats changes. I like the |>. Could take or leave \\().
But as I have become more used to Lisp I've noticed that while at first the low level expressions seem verbose, the higher level structures they produce are incredibly predictable regular.
But as I have become more used to Lisp I've noticed that while at first the low level expressions seem verbose, the higher level structures they produce are incredibly predictable regular.
It produces a 'sheet of music' effect, where my brain automatically recognises rhythmic structures I've seen before and I seem to be able to parse them as whole units rather than individual notes.
Same kinds of things happen in Lisp with program structure.
Same kinds of things happen in Lisp with program structure.
More operators and expressive forms mean the patterns are noisier, more commonly interrupted by things I don't commonly use, but someone else has decided to. I think it makes it harder to grok higher level program structure.
I can't quite 'take my eyes off the code' so to speak.
I can't quite 'take my eyes off the code' so to speak.
I think affects the input side too. More keys to hit on the keyboard makes things feel slower to type, the typing rhythm is interrupted in a corresponding way to the parsing process.
Typing Lisp in Emacs has a feel to it. Everything just 'clicks' into place as you go. It's like the cursor is always moving forward.
Yes, the auto styler is great, but it has a very easy job compared to more complex languages.
Yes, the auto styler is great, but it has a very easy job compared to more complex languages.
