re: My opinion re LISP

Gareth McCaughan wrote:

> Oh, and if we're playing the intuitive-appeal-to-novices
> game, consider
>
> (loop for n from 1 upto 10 sum n) ==> 55
>
> and try to find another language in which that could be
> expressed as neatly. :-)

Racket:

(for/sum ([i 11]) i)
=> 55

NewLisp:

(apply + (sequence 1 10))
=> 55

MatzLisp:

(1..10).reduce(:+)
==>55

Clojure:

user=> (apply + (range 1 11))
55
user=> (reduce + (range 1 11))
55

On 25/05/12 10:58, WJ wrote:
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
>> Oh, and if we're playing the intuitive-appeal-to-novices
>> game, consider
>>
>> (loop for n from 1 upto 10 sum n) ==> 55
>>
>> and try to find another language in which that could be
>> expressed as neatly. :-)
>
> Racket:
>
> (for/sum ([i 11]) i)
> => 55
>
> NewLisp:
>
> (apply + (sequence 1 10))
> => 55
>
> MatzLisp:
>
> (1..10).reduce(:+)
> ==>55
>
> Clojure:
>
> user=> (apply + (range 1 11))
> 55
> user=> (reduce + (range 1 11))
> 55

I was struggling with loop for ages, mostly because I have expected it
to be like other languages. Lisp being too intuitive is a problem
because other languages do it hard way. Unlearning something is often
much harder than learning new things.