Comments on: I’m Officially a Lisp Developer Now http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/ Miscellaneous ramblings on miscellaneous topics Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:18:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joshua Lee http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/comment-page-1/#comment-421 Joshua Lee Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:38:17 +0000 http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/#comment-421 <p>Well, that fits in with your appreciation of the more free-form elements of Lisp programming. I like loop OK too, I was only teasing, like the rest of my message. :-) (re: some redditors attack of your use of the term "better".)</p> Well, that fits in with your appreciation of the more free-form elements of Lisp programming. I like loop OK too, I was only teasing, like the rest of my message. :-) (re: some redditors attack of your use of the term “better”.)

]]> By: Head Geek http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/comment-page-1/#comment-419 Head Geek Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:47:01 +0000 http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/#comment-419 <p>I'll stand by my choice of terms. :-)</p> <p>And yes, I used the loop macro. Paul Graham seems to dislike it, and other people apparently complain that it's not "Lispy" enough, but it's powerful, highly readable, and a useful abstraction, so I see nothing wrong with using it.</p> I’ll stand by my choice of terms. :-)

And yes, I used the loop macro. Paul Graham seems to dislike it, and other people apparently complain that it’s not “Lispy” enough, but it’s powerful, highly readable, and a useful abstraction, so I see nothing wrong with using it.

]]> By: Joshua Lee http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/comment-page-1/#comment-418 Joshua Lee Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:02:46 +0000 http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/30/im-officially-a-lisp-developer-now/#comment-418 <p>Ah, "nicer", "nearly-perfect", are you sure that's a "better" term or isn't there a "better" one? ;-) ;-)</p> <p>And not only did you use imprecise terminology again, you used the loop macro!!</p> Ah, “nicer”, “nearly-perfect”, are you sure that’s a “better” term or isn’t there a “better” one? ;-) ;-)

And not only did you use imprecise terminology again, you used the loop macro!!

]]>