Re: Another question about lambdas

[tomas]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:56:03AM +0100, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
> 
> > (now let me get out of the trap: I have to admit that I didn't stop
> > to think about dynamic binding).
> 
> At university I learned that lexical binding would be more intuitive to
> understand, but harder to implement.  I thought I was special because I
> always found dynamic binding more intuitive.  I thought it was because I
> learned Lisp mostly by using Emacs, at a time where lexical binding was
> only available using a strange thing called `lexical-let' (AFAIR you had
> to require cl to use it).

I think it depends on socialization. Those comning from shell languages
are clearly in the dynamic camp.

The most enriching experience is when you grow up with a language which
makes the transformation (the Lisps and Perl come to mind: do you know
others?)

> But it seems that dynamic binding is the more intuitive scoping rule for
> a lot of people.  And a lot have their problems with lexical binding and
> closures.

Now it would be interesting to know whether this is a general rule or
there are people more at ease with the one or the other side.

When I try to explain that, one of the devices I use is the idea of
"space" (static) vs. "time" (dynamic). It sticks with some people.

Cheers
-- 
t

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature