One funny thing is that I was not even used to one thing: a let just to bind one local at the head of a function really bugged me, so I would use &aux to avoid it.
But yeah, just a few weeks of arccing and I realized I was hitting myself in the head with a hammer and decided to stop, or rather, how much surprisingly nicer it was to just superabbreviate and de-parens the obvious.
Of course I try not to use LET (I think there is a tax on it) but I was doing a DSL which was always starting by picking a random entity that then got re=used a few times, so I was in Letville unless I wanted to go nuts and code-walk in my DSL.
> a let just to bind one local at the head of a function really bugged me, so I would use &aux to avoid it.
> Of course I try not to use LET (I think there is a tax on it)
In Cadence Skill, the lisplike we use in the office, 'let does have a tax to it when using lexical bindings; environments were pretty hefty objects and using 'let in a loop would generate a lot of them as garbage (the language implementation doesn't even have tail call opts!). I ended up using @optional (approximately equal to &optional) for some variables in time-constrained code, which helped reduce environments.
