C++ vs Lisp

[Georg Wrede]

Neal Alexander wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> An oldie, but some very thought provoking observations on what makes 
>>> a language productive:
>>>
>>> http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~irenelg/courses/330/CTM/Resources/C++-vs-Lisp.txt 
>>
>> Concise does not always mean readable, and reducing lines of code 
>> should *never* be a design goal. For example, if I removed many 
>> temporary variables and used long expressions (as is the style in many 
>> functional languages), I could probably chop off 1/5-1/4 of the LOC of 
>> my program, but debugging/fixing it would get much harder. 
>> Additionally, redundancy (as stated in the ";" topic) is not 
>> necessarily a bad thing as it helps reinforce meaning to readers.
> 
> Dunno heh, some functional languages tend to have a much easier time 
> with spreading dense logic into smaller segments. Its not about just 
> packing in as much logic as you can per line. You show the high level 
> interaction between functions and abstract away the gory details of the 
> implementation.
> 
> f x =
>     write x =<< mutate =<< read x
> 
>     where
>         mutatate list = do
>                         ...

One of the reasons we have inner functions in D now.