"C-like" syntax for Lisp in less than 100 lines of code
in [Lisp]
|
From: Nick Keighley on 22 Apr 2010 05:44 On 21 Apr, 15:51, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:04:14 -0700, Pillsy wrote: > > On Apr 20, 11:43 pm, Günther Thomsen <guenth...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [....] > >> This comes up every now and then. I'm not sure whether this > >> parenthesis-paralysis is actually a real problem or an often-repeated > >> myth. in my experience it's real > > I'm increasingly convinced that parentheses are the fundamental reason > > that Lisp isn't a lot more popular than it is. Syntax really matters to > > [people] > > That's like saying that the requirement to engage in abstract thinking > is the fundamental reason that makes (serious) mathematics unpopular. > Maybe. But there is nothing you can do about it: you can't make it > "easier" without making it uninteresting. I think my problem is never understood *why* I had to tolerate the pain. I don't know if they didn't say or if I didn't listen but Lisp just seemed perverse to me. I've never been good at learning things "because I say so" (I was a late reader as a child for similar reasons). > Likewise, it does not really make much sense to talk about how popular > Lisp would be without parentheses. I see that now. > Speculations on how fundamental > the SEXP syntax is to Lisp (and why Dylan failed etc) aside, no one > has demonstrated the existence of an equally powerful Lisp with a more > "conventional" syntax, so what the experiment/counterfactual would be > is not clear. is it even possible to do something like Lisp's macros without SEXPs? > If someone invented a Lisp without parenthesis that is as powerful as > eg CL, we would be able to talk about whether the parens make Lisp > unpopular. Naturally, I am not holding my breath :-) > > Personally, I grew to like Lisp syntax. it's growing on me > But maybe this is a > preference that is heterogeneous in the population: people who like the > syntax or are willing to tolerate it for the extra power become Lisp > programmers, the rest don't. Not much we can do about this. try to explain the reason for the wierd syntax? Look at the syntax the C++ template programmers live with to get certain things done... > > I think Common Lisp is an easier language to learn than Scheme, with its > > richer set of imperative constructs and much better support for IO and > > object orientation. Learning Scheme involves drinking a bunch of > > Kool-Aid, and the good Scheme books are at least as much about selling > > you that Kool-Aid as they are about teaching you a new language. > > Agreed. I almost gave up on Lisp because I started with books on > Scheme. It was years later when I learned that there are people who > write practical programs in (heavily extended dialects of) Scheme. I'm still plodding the stoney scheme road... CL always looked a bit of monster to me... -- "Een schip op het strand is een baken in zee. [A ship on the beach is a lighthouse to the sea.]" - Dutch Proverb [apparently very bad dutch]
From: Nick Keighley on 22 Apr 2010 05:57 On 21 Apr, 23:27, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > Pillsy <pillsb...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > On Apr 20, 11:43 pm, Günther Thomsen <guenth...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> This comes up every now and then. I'm not sure whether this > >> parenthesis-paralysis is actually a real problem or an often-repeated > >> myth. > > > I'm increasingly convinced that parentheses are the fundamental reason > > that Lisp isn't a lot more popular than it is. Syntax really matters > > to people, and the reasons it matters are rooted in subjective > > judgements about "prettiness" or "ease of reading". It so happens that > > a lot of programmers hate the parentheses for subjective reasons that > > simply don't apply to Lisp users because if they applied, we wouldn't > > be Lisp users. > > We should tag "(this is a list)" in front of each primary school of the > world! :-) oddly I used to (when writing english (as a teenager)) deeply nest parentheses, I was much more tolerant of nested structures (than most people), combining this with my "lite" (never start an (unnecessary) new paragraph (a stop (will do)) never start an (unnecessary) new sentence (a comma (will do))), I'm surprised my english teacher isn't now confined to some (padded) room drawing ()'s on the walls (with crayons). I also taught myself to stop doing this. perhaps if I'd continued Lisp would have made me less unhappy.
From: Nick Keighley on 22 Apr 2010 06:00 On 22 Apr, 10:57, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Apr, 23:27, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) > wrote: > > > > > > > Pillsy <pillsb...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > On Apr 20, 11:43 pm, Günther Thomsen <guenth...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> This comes up every now and then. I'm not sure whether this > > >> parenthesis-paralysis is actually a real problem or an often-repeated > > >> myth. > > > > I'm increasingly convinced that parentheses are the fundamental reason > > > that Lisp isn't a lot more popular than it is. Syntax really matters > > > to people, and the reasons it matters are rooted in subjective > > > judgements about "prettiness" or "ease of reading". It so happens that > > > a lot of programmers hate the parentheses for subjective reasons that > > > simply don't apply to Lisp users because if they applied, we wouldn't > > > be Lisp users. > > > We should tag "(this is a list)" in front of each primary school of the > > world! :-) > [layout de-googled] oddly I used to (when writing english (as a teenager)) deeply nest parentheses, I was much more tolerant of nested structures (than most people), combining this with my "lite" (never start an (unnecessary) new paragraph (a stop (will do)) never start an (unnecessary) new sentence (a comma (will do))), I'm surprised my english teacher isn't now confined to some (padded) room drawing ()'s on the walls (with crayons). I also taught myself to stop doing this.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 22 Apr 2010 09:22 On 2010-04-22 10:57:48 +0100, Nick Keighley said: > I also taught myself to stop doing this. perhaps if > I'd continued > Lisp would have made me less unhappy. I don't think so, because the parenthesis in Lisp serve a very different purpose (in "(if (< x 1) ... ...)", "(< x 1)" is not a parenthetical remark which can be skipped on first reading).
From: Teemu Likonen on 23 Apr 2010 14:07
* 2010-04-23 15:13 (UTC), Jorge Gajon wrote: > /"But you said Emacs is more powerful."/ > > Yes but I don't need a tetris game, or GNUS, or a web browser, or an > ultra super duper grand unified debugger (as cool as it is.) I believe this is just "psychological bloat". Those parts of Emacs you don't use are only *.elc files on your hard disks. They are loaded only when you actually use them. Bot Vim and Emacs are very light-weight applications compared to other applications. |