Thread 105724692

If Lisp is readable, why do Lispers throw temper tantrums when a 5 line function doesn't have a 10 line comment documenting everything it does? I thought your language was readable, Lispbros? In a normal language, documentation only exists for people who can't read code, since it's always less descriptive and less readable than code. Can Lispers not read their own code?

I've literally never seen this unless you're talking about a sophisticated macro. You sound like you have a screw loose.

>>105724729
Browse the lisp thread more often I guess

you comment what the code cannot say
Lisp code has too few comments if anything

>>105724823
No, you browse my fucking nuts you whore

>>105724692 (OP)
lisp is readable
but lisp code also has a lot of newly defined macros with which one may be entirely unfamiliar. many lispy types don't want to admit it but many code bases end up with almost a different vocabulary so to say

>>105724729
>>105725485
Right, the only readability problems with s-expr languages are all the user-defined DSL macros. It could have been more readable if every Lisp had Scheme syntax macros instead of going for direct AST manipulation.

>>105724823
I use Lisp and have never encountered this. I'll nearly always comment even short macros unless they're common tools I'd expect someone to know or be able to figure out.