< ... >
I think from that book are listed the general accepted rules when coding, but you know everyone has different perception on the things (and with time it changes).
I'd be interested in knowing the items that you believe don't apply to Lisp.
.... and no, I don't know that " everyone has different perception on the things "
Regards,
I ment that not everyone uses all the steps listed in that book...
When did you started learning lisp, did you immediately started manipulating assoc/nested lists?
Or like the most skipped #4 rule, got used localising for example 10 symbols and later with the time learned how to avoid that, then your eyes got used to list manipulation and never went back...
I'm still seein guys disregard that #4 rule, although their knowledge or experience - you can't judge them because the routine still works.
And maybe if you ask them why, they might tell you "thats my preference" - which would cover my "perceptions" statement.
Whats a good example for #9 rule?
Say a variable name
"Column5_WidthBase" won't be confused.
Then in the code are localised or used such names in a list 12 more variables with similar names.
Personally I'd get lost along the long variable names, and would use acronyms instead (i.e. "c5wb") - now you might agree with this, but not everyone prefers it.
So.. if my
"everyone has different perception on the things" statement is wrong, then why not everyone would code like that:
'(
(c1wb 5)(c2wb 6)(c3wb 7)
(c1ht 1)(c2ht 2)(c3ht 3)
)
)
(setq inputs '
((width
6) (height
2) (thickness
1) (offset
6)))
And I also know a guy who writes very impressive routines - but its a nightmare when you try to understand his codes, because:
He uses a global variables between his functions and localises them in the end function,
which means that you have to continiously scroll over the thousand rows just to trace whats happening to a single variable.
Someone else could say "hey thats wrong, don't do it like that", but thats his perception.
That book is a good guide, but it won't make everyone write exactly or almost in the same way.
Else we would see shortcuts and perfection everywhere IMO.