From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-03-27T21:22:25+09:00 Subject: Re: [OT] on Lisp (was: Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers) "Robert Klemme" writes: > "Christian Neukirchen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:m2wtrute3t.fsf@lilith.local... >> for example, create a Hash from two Arrays that contain the >> keys/values. I wonder how *you* would implement that. As soon as it >> gets a bit more complex, Ruby provides lots of ways to solve things. >> It's just that the very to often needed cases already have very >> convenient solutions. That's what makes everyone think Ruby is so >> easy and covenient. (And unfortunately, the part were Common Lisp >> doesn't shine. > > Yeah, maybe that's what makes the difference. The convenience > mechanisms encapsulate complexity which is good if you start. You can > then later delve into more detail. But if you just have a set of > basic building blocks that you can combine in any way (Lego comes to > mind...) it might be hard to find a good starting point. But then, Lego is lots of fun to play with. :-) Much more than Playmobil, for example. But it takes longer to get started, right. >> CL's `(foo bar ,baz quux) is to lists what Ruby's "foo bar #{baz} quux" >> is to strings. I don't think that is very hard to grasp, > > But it's easy to overlook as it's smaller (compare "`" with "#{}"). You're free to define a new reader macro that makes `(,foo) look like #{foo}. :-) Even if you overlook the `, when you see the , (or ,@) you notice you have to be in a quasi-quotation (at least if the code is valid). > I'll try > http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/macros-standard-control-constructs.html > and http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/macros-defining-your-own.html Good start, yes. > Kind regards > robert -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org