«

Pascal Bourguignon wrote:

> Well, as explained in Paul Graham's "On Lisp" in his extended coverage
> of LISP macros, if you don't mind the typing (and most importantly the
> associated obfuscation by redundant details),...

Right. I want to start this almost 500 message thread over again and say
to the Pythonistas, "I thought you valued visually cleaner code?".

kenny


--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:49:24 GMT,
Kenny Tilton <> wrote:
> Right. I want to start this almost 500 message thread over again and say
> to the Pythonistas, "I thought you valued visually cleaner code?".

Yes, but we also value people who know when the horse is dead.

--amk

A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:49:24 GMT,
> Kenny Tilton <> wrote:
>
>>Right. I want to start this almost 500 message thread over again and say
>>to the Pythonistas, "I thought you valued visually cleaner code?".
>
>
> Yes, but we also value people who know when the horse is dead.

nonsense. in those 500 messages not once did Lispniks point out that
macros can be used for no good end other than to hide a lot of
boilerplate typing (and that is a very good end AFAIAC. Visually cleaner
code is very important to Pythonistas, so this was a serious oversight.
(It would not have been in a visually ugly language.)

this horse needs killing, too, but we all agree on cleaner code so one
good Pedro Martinez fastball in the hear should have Old Nell down
faster than Zim.



--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey