[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?

From: Emanuel Berg
Subject: Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 01:00:38 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

Rusi <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric Raymond's ... quote ...
>    Lisp is worth learning for the profound
>    enlightenment experience you will have when you
>    finally get it; that experience will make you
>    a better programmer for the rest of your days,
>    even if you never actually use Lisp itself
>    a lot.

That is true because there is a hierarchy of tool
power (perhaps Rusi would call it "expressioness" or
something like that).

When you have to some extent acquired what is at the
top of the food-chain then what is below is easy.

But it cannot be *too* down below because then you
will just be frustrated that you are so hampered.

Also, I don't agree Lisp is more difficult to learn.
On the contrary, I think Elisp in particular is easy
to acquire because of the dynamic nature of the editor
and what you do with it. You do small things which you
can evaluate instantly so not to waste time on huge
recompilations, Makefiles, and such (to correct small
bugs), you just do small things the worth of which can
be "evaluated" instantly.

The success story of computers - you use the computer
to improve your use of the computer - which is the
reason for its exponential growths just as much as
cheap sand to make transistors - this is undoubtedly
there in compiled C in principle just as much, but in
Elisp it is super-tangible.

So try the new Elisp Ultra. Probably about 25% more
efficient :)

underground experts united

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]