Reading this article gave me insight into the interaction that typically occurs in Lisp discussions, where someone will present sample code where they are having a problem and requesting a solution. Instead of getting the answer they expect, what they typically receive is an explanation of why that is not "the Lisp way". On the surface, this looks like nitpicking, but when you look at it from the Programming as Theory Building viewpoint, it is clear that the respondents are more versed in the theory of Lisp and are merely trying to enrich the original requester with the same enlightenment.
In general, I thought the article was excellent, as it voiced many of the ideas that I've seen pg express in his likening of Lisp programming to working with clay, as well as many of my own insights of what programming actually means to me. Unfortunately, it also helps to justify my constant rewriting of my code to make it more elegant, as any mathematician would be expected to do the same. While this may be a good intellectual exercise, it's not necessarily good for getting stuff done.
I'm with ya on rewriting code to make it cleaner. Maybe it's OCD, but who cares. It's one of the joys of coding to me. And yeah, sometimes it's costly, but sometimes it's very beneficial, and regardless it's like an itch.
Reading this article gave me insight into the interaction that typically occurs in Lisp discussions, where someone will present sample code where they are having a problem and requesting a solution. Instead of getting the answer they expect, what they typically receive is an explanation of why that is not "the Lisp way". On the surface, this looks like nitpicking, but when you look at it from the Programming as Theory Building viewpoint, it is clear that the respondents are more versed in the theory of Lisp and are merely trying to enrich the original requester with the same enlightenment.
In general, I thought the article was excellent, as it voiced many of the ideas that I've seen pg express in his likening of Lisp programming to working with clay, as well as many of my own insights of what programming actually means to me. Unfortunately, it also helps to justify my constant rewriting of my code to make it more elegant, as any mathematician would be expected to do the same. While this may be a good intellectual exercise, it's not necessarily good for getting stuff done.
I'm with ya on rewriting code to make it cleaner. Maybe it's OCD, but who cares. It's one of the joys of coding to me. And yeah, sometimes it's costly, but sometimes it's very beneficial, and regardless it's like an itch.