On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:

> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp

Paul Graham:

I consider Loop one of the worst flaws in CL, and an example
to be borne in mind by both macro writers and language designers.

[In "ANSI Common Lisp", Graham makes the following comments:]

> The loop macro was originally designed to help inexperienced
> Lisp users write iterative code. Instead of writing Lisp code,
> you express your program in a form meant to resemble English,
> and this is then translated into Lisp. Unfortunately, loop is
> more like English than its designers ever intended: you can
> use it in simple cases without quite understanding how it
> works, but to understand it in the abstract is almost
> impossible.
> ....
> the ANSI standard does not really give a formal specification
> of its behavior.
> ....
> The first thing one notices about the loop macro is that it
> has syntax. A loop expression contains not subexpressions but
> clauses. The clauses are not delimited by parentheses;
> instead, each kind has a distinct syntax. In that, loop
> resembles traditional Algol-like languages. But the other
> distinctive feature of loop, which makes it as unlike Algol as
> Lisp, is that the order in which things happen is only
> loosely related to the order in which the clauses occur.
> ....
> For such reasons, the use of loop cannot be recommended.

He wrote:

"the ANSI standard does not really give a formal specification
of its behavior."

In other words, Loop is "ill-defined".

"B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> writes:

> On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:
>
< > Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
< > defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp
>
> Paul Graham:
>
> I consider Loop one of the worst flaws in CL, and an example
> to be borne in mind by both macro writers and language designers.
>
>
> [In "ANSI Common Lisp", Graham makes the following comments:]
>
< > The loop macro was originally designed to help inexperienced
< > Lisp users write iterative code. Instead of writing Lisp code,
< > you express your program in a form meant to resemble English,
< > and this is then translated into Lisp. Unfortunately, loop is
< > more like English than its designers ever intended: you can
< > use it in simple cases without quite understanding how it
< > works, but to understand it in the abstract is almost
< > impossible.

Not so! loop was to rid ourselves of DO...

< > ....
< > the ANSI standard does not really give a formal specification
< > of its behavior.
< > ....
< > The first thing one notices about the loop macro is that it
< > has syntax. A loop expression contains not subexpressions but
< > clauses. The clauses are not delimited by parentheses;
< > instead, each kind has a distinct syntax. In that, loop
< > resembles traditional Algol-like languages. But the other
< > distinctive feature of loop, which makes it as unlike Algol as
< > Lisp, is that the order in which things happen is only
< > loosely related to the order in which the clauses occur.

not so...

< > ....
< > For such reasons, the use of loop cannot be recommended.

Grahm was always a schemer at heart. He like currect continuation so
much he practically rewrote lisp to scheme.

Grahm also uses poor names for his functions. he is like a pascal
programmeer :)

We all know Norvig is the greatest lisp author on earth ;)