Why is there no left recursion in Shen yacc? I was just wondering if it was a technical issue or something else. Willi Riha 3:27 AM (11 hours ago) Shen-yacc goes into an infinite loop, as I also have noticed.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-27 13:34
shen is such garbage
it's so frustrating seeing all the dilettantes gazing at it in awe
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-27 13:38
>>9 They always mention it anywhere anyone mentions Lisp, but no one has actually written anything in it because it's shit.
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-27 14:35
people were gasping in awe at it's turing complete type system
it's embarrassing because TCness is the thing you want to avoid most in a type system
Name:
Anonymous2015-06-27 15:25
>>11 No, it isn't. Common Lisp macros are Turing-complete and that works very well.
I agree. The original McCarthy's paper used dynamic scoping and contained at least one breaking bug because of that, despite the simplicity of the code. In fact it's impossible to write a nontrivial program in a dynamically scoped Lisp, which is its most important feature, as it keeps the language and the community pure and free from apper influence.
I'd love Racket if it didn't have that bizarre visual programming marketing going on, and if it didn't use so many confusing square brackets. These eyes can only read parenthesized LISP, and any other means to suggest semantics run direly contrary to that.
(exceptions for about 1000 kinds of quoting. lol, deal w/ it. (also, NO EXCEPTIONS.))
>>31 NO. C AND C++ ARE NOT LISPS. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE.
Name:
Anonymous2015-07-26 9:48
>>29 Wake me up when C and C++ looks something like this. (def bit-bucket-writer (proxy [java.io.Writer] [] (write [buf] nil) (close [] nil) (flush [] nil)))
(defmacro noprint "Evaluates the given expressions with all printing to *out* silenced." [& forms] `(binding [*out* bit-bucket-writer] ~@forms))