Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
> (eq 'a 'b) is false.
> (eq 'a 'a) is true.
> (eq 3 3) might be true or false, depending on the implementation.
In what universe 3 and 3 might not be equal by any metric imaginable? Common Lisp is truly a cursed language.
@lunarised what if I just wanna compare to values? Surely, I could just use `equal` everywhere, except it doesn't always work on symbols.
>Symbols are compared as for eq. This method of comparing symbols can violate the rule of thumb for equal and printed representations, but only in the infrequently occurring case of two distinct symbols with the same print name.
What the literal fuck is this shit?
@curtmack @lunarised I think I'll just pass on Lisp again, thank you. Equality operators is just one of the problems. There's just too many things missing in CL (and often in other lisps) that I take for granted in other languages.
For example, I've just discovered that Quicklisp doesn't support pulling dependencies from git. Where in cargo or stack or literally any other language-specific package manager I can just specify git url and commit hash, in Lisp I need to perform some sort of magic.
All of this is just too much.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!