[–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

One can definitely go overboard with this, though. I have had to read a lot of code where someone broke something up into several functions that only had the effective of forcing me to constantly bounce around all over source file to figure out what was going on without improving clarity at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Ugh, I absolutely hate reading code with a ton of variables that are only used once, because each introduction of a variable is a new thing that I have to first parse and then track to figure out what it does. I would much rather read a pipeline that expresses what is going on concisely without introducing extraneous elements. In particular, I thought that the pipeline at the start of the article was perfectly clear and did not need any of the subsequent modifications.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If the people creating this music did not feel that they were being fairly compensated, then why did they not just ask for more from the people actually making the games? That seems like the simplest solution.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    What a weird false dichotomy. A planet with well over 7 Billion people can do at least two things at once.

    You are correct in general, but one cannot do two things at once when the first thing is (at least, arguably) a necessary prerequisite to the second thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    It is worth noting that the more fundamental thing going on here is that abstract syntax trees are the general way in which programs are represented after being parsed, rather than this being something specific to Lisp. What makes Lisp interesting is essentially that it uses a notation that makes the underlying AST incredibly explicit.

  • source
  • view more: next ›