Hasktard admits LITHP superiority

https://deque.blog/2017/02/17/quickcheck-is-fun-deal-with-it/

Since we are already on the LISP subject, we can take this opportunity to solve the long lasting developer debate. Which is better, infix or prefix notation?
Because every developer’s life goal is to golf his code, the winner will be the format that results in the shortest string representation in average.

The results shows the quite stunning performance of the prefix notation, winner by quite a large margin:

25% characters less for prn for expressions of complexity 30
30% characters less for prn for expressions of complexity 100

We would not want to conclude too fast and declare that prefix notation completely owns the infix notation. Instead, we hope the reader will come to this same conclusion by himself.

Because every developer’s life goal is to golf his code

The subject should read ``Hasktard admits LITHP superiority for code golf in expressions containing only multiplication and addition.''

But the Hasktard is still wrong. He puts unnecessary spaces between the infix expressions.

"(+ 1 2 (* 0 x y) (* 1 y (+ 2 x)) (+ 0 x))"
"1+2+0*x*y+1*y*(2+x)+0+x"

Even if you remove the extra spaces around parentheses, the infix still wins.

"(+ 1 2(* 0 x y)(* 1 y(+ 2 x))(+ 0 x))"
"1+2+0*x*y+1*y*(2+x)+0+x"

http://quickdocs.org/cl-quickcheck/api

>>1

remove the extra spaces around parentheses

What if i don't add them in the first place? I also don't indent

JACKSON 5 GET

Because every developer’s life goal is to golf his code

no it isn't, unless you're suckless

>>6
The article was written by a Haskeller.

>>6-7
The article was written in jest. You know, "humor", the kind of thing that is linked to intelligence, the kind of thing that you both seem to lack?

>>8
Humor is not intelligent.

>>9
If you mean American humor, then yes.

>>10
No, I meant American humour,

age

>>11
fuck off paki