(defmethod wake ((object magic-packet) address port)
  (let* ((payload (encode-payload object))
         (size (length payload))
         (socket (usocket:socket-connect nil nil :protocol :datagram :element-type '(unsigned-byte 8))))
    (setf (usocket:socket-option socket :broadcast) t)
    (usocket:socket-send socket payload size :host address :port port)
    (usocket:socket-close socket)))

Actually unreadable.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Maybe Emacs has fried my brain, but that is perfectly readable. Common Lisp has one of the most advanced object systems around, so yea you can write hard to read stuff if you want

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Entirely readable to someone who knows Common Lisp, and unreadable to someone who doesn't know any kind of Lisp. Mostly readable to someone who knows Emacs Lisp, Clojure, or Scheme.

Being able to correctly guess what the syntax does without knowing the language is a function of similarity to familiar languages more often than it is a characteristic of the syntax itself.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Emacs Lisp

If someone knows elisp, they would have no trouble with that. Emacs has EIEIO, which is basically like CLOS lite

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I imagine the tricky part for someone unfamiliar with Lisp would be that there's no syntactic clue that a particular thing is a macro or special form that's going to treat its arguments differently from a function call. Someone who knows Scheme may have never seen anything like CLOS, but would see from context that defmethod must not be a function.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yea, and CLOS is pretty weird, with putting methods outside the class definition.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You don't even need to define a class to define methods. I'm sure that's surprising to people coming from today's popular language, but the original comment was about syntax.

Whether Lisp syntax is ugly is a matter of taste, but it's objectively not unreadable.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Where you can define a method is syntax

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

In most languages, I would agree with that. In Lisp, I think I might not. If Common Lisp didn't come with CLOS, you could implement it as a library, and that is not true of the object systems of the vast majority of languages.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

It's like comparing Hitler to Stalin. Both are pretty shit... Two things can be ugly at the same time. 😅

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 2 points 19 hours ago

collapsed inline media