((((())()))())))))))))((()
>>55045171
I'm surrounded by dicks
Why would I want to use (((Lisp)))?
>>55045603
For its sophisticated graphic design and logo
>>55045603
Why wouldn't you want to use (Lisp)?
>>55045603
>Homoiconic
>Programmable and extensible
>Functional
>Declarative
>Simple
Why wouldn't you?
>>55045145
Isn't Lisp super old and obscure now?
What's the main reason for using Lisp?
>>55048270
It's taught in entry-level CS classes and not obscure at all.
It's used to take "autists" out of the workforce.
>>55045603
>>55047909
i love how every time someone asks that question you always get vague ass answers from smug lispers
>>55047909
brackets make things unreadable there is more characters than ()
(((Mark Levin)))
I'm triggered when an extremely common character in a language requires the shift key to press.
>() in Lisp
>% in Assembly
><> in HTML
Pressing shift+key is always slower than just pressing a key. This is why in MMOs I never bind an important commonly-used ability to a shift-combination.
Languages should flow and be fun to type. Your fingers should be elegantly dancing across the keys. Having to hold shift and wait for another key is clunky and awkward.
>>55045145
le reddit comic
Fuck off norm.
>>55045145
You must be alert when coding in Lisp.
If you see a parenthesis loitering about on its own you just know it's up to no good.
>>55048384
in most scheme implementations you can use [] too
>>55049395
Most brackets are honest hardworking and contribute to society, it's only a small portion of brackets that cause problems.
>>55049058
you're gonna fucking hate canadian keyboards then
>>55049058
>using AT&T syntax
You brought this upon yourself
>>55048382
Its your ignorance of the terms what makes it vague.
heh
>>55049627
Is there any advantage of AT&T syntax over Intel syntax? It just looks a lot more messy.
>>55048355
One guy gets it.
>>55049769
From what I've seen, there's really no advantage to it. Yet it's the syntax everyone seems to use
>>55049817
From what I've seen it seems AT&T syntax is simpler from the perspective of the person writing the assembler application while Intel syntax is simpler from the end user's perspective.
AT&T syntax the end user has to specify whether they're referencing a register or an immediate value and they also must specify the word length of the data they're modifying. With Intel syntax the assembler must determine this information from what is given by the end user.
>>55049058
>{} in every normie language
>>55049769
Intel syntax is based on the syntax Intel uses in their own CPU manuals.
GAS syntax is based on the AT&T Unix, which is based on PDP-11 and VAX, but with % signs in front of register names.
It's actually a disadvantage over Intel.
>>55050067
i don't know why GAS does this
i hate having two assemblers for x86 on a machine
>>55050081
>>55050067
>(((GAS)))
anyone have the extension btw?
