4 ms·

Have you actually tried it for a significant period of time? Most (but not all) people who have used lisp for significant projects find that they either like t

Have you actually tried it for a significant period of time? Most (but not all) people who have used lisp for significant projects find that they either like the parens or are simply neutral about them. There are very few people I have heard from that have stuck through a significant project in lisp and came out hating the parens still.

overcast 11y ago
Admittedly, I've not used it for any significant period of time. But I do base a lot of language learning on the ease of use of its syntax for newcomers. Having to force my way through a significant project with it, just to potentially enjoy it, keeps it at the bottom of the interest list.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > But I do base a lot of language learning on the ease of use of its syntax for newcomers. From what I've observed of learners, people without lots of programming background seem to have no more problem with parens in lisps (in the broad sense -- mostly, I've seen this with Scheme and Racket) than with syntax features of various Algol-family (C, etc.) languages. People with extensive experience in programming that is mostly restricted to Algol-family languages seem to be the people who are most put-off by lisps and their parens. Which is to say, there are different kinds of newcomers.
  - overcast 11y ago
    I was referring to "newcomers", as just people new to LISP, and not complete newcomers to programming languages. So more the latter of what you wrote.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > I was referring to "newcomers", as just people new to LISP, and not complete newcomers to programming languages. Sure, but not all newcomers to lisp that are familiar with programming are people that whose programming experience is tightly tied to Algol-family languages. For me, Lisp wasn't any more unwelcoming than any other new languages when I encountered it well into my experience with programming, but a number of languages I encountered much earlier in my programming life (BASIC, Forth, Logo, x86 ASM, among others) weren't Algol-family languages.
- yogthos 11y ago
  The fact is that there aren't actually more parens than most languages. Take a look at any JavaScript code base and you'll see far more parens there. One benefit of Lisp syntax is that it provides you visual information about relationships in the code, since it's structured as tree. The nesting tells you how functions relate to each other at a glance. It makes the code easily scannable, once you're used to reading it. Another big advantage is that you can use a structural editor with Lisp. You don't actually manage parens by hand, the editor does it for you. You can see it in action here. https://cursive-ide.com/userguide/paredit.html https://cursive-ide.com/userguide/paredit.html The syntax is actually one of the easiest ones to learn, because there is very little of it and it's very consistent. Just because it's not familiar, doesn't mean it's hard to learn. I use Clojure at work and I regularly train co-op students. I haven't had a student who took longer than a couple of weeks to become productive with the language, or didn't love using it. However, most had a negative reaction to the syntax initially.
jfaucett 11y ago
Exactly this. I've actually never met a person who has used a lisp to build software and complained about parens. I have the feeling parens are like functional language syntax, just something foreign which seems annoying or pointless until you actually start using the tools for a significant time and learn the benefits that arise from what initially seemed strange and alien.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Most (but not all) people who have used lisp for significant projects find that they either like the parens or are simply neutral about them. There's a substantial selection bias there in that people who have strongly negative feelings about parens have plenty of opportunities in the field to work with languages without them, so the only people likely to put up with them on significant projects are ones who feel positively, neutrally, or perhaps only weakly negatively about the feature from the start. That said, I do think the complaints about that particular feature are overblown, much the way those about Python's particular whitespace handling are.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rgoddard 11y ago
  I think this is related to the fact that our own internal parsers that have been trained upon c-style code falls about when trying to read list code. So the dislike is not due to the number of parenthesis, but rather our own internal discord when trying to apply our existing mental parsers. The only way to get around this is to spend enough time using the language so that you can build a new mental parser.
cageface 11y ago
I did quite a bit of Common Lisp coding back in the day and I never grew to like the syntax. I felt it was the price I had to pay for macros, but otherwise found it awkward.
- mej10 11y ago
  Did you ever learn Paredit? Once I did, editing any other type of code became awkward in comparison.
calgoo 11y ago
When i was testing out clojure a few months back, it took me around 4 to 6 hours to get used to them. After that, my eyes where just ignoring them and the code looks very much like a C type syntax.

overcast 11y ago

Admittedly, I've not used it for any significant period of time. But I do base a lot of language learning on the ease of use of its syntax for newcomers. Having to force my way through a significant project with it, just to potentially enjoy it, keeps it at the bottom of the interest list.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> But I do base a lot of language learning on the ease of use of its syntax for newcomers. From what I've observed of learners, people without lots of programming background seem to have no more problem with parens in lisps (in the broad sense -- mostly, I've seen this with Scheme and Racket) than with syntax features of various Algol-family (C, etc.) languages. People with extensive experience in programming that is mostly restricted to Algol-family languages seem to be the people who are most put-off by lisps and their parens. Which is to say, there are different kinds of newcomers.
- overcast 11y ago
  I was referring to "newcomers", as just people new to LISP, and not complete newcomers to programming languages. So more the latter of what you wrote.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I was referring to "newcomers", as just people new to LISP, and not complete newcomers to programming languages. Sure, but not all newcomers to lisp that are familiar with programming are people that whose programming experience is tightly tied to Algol-family languages. For me, Lisp wasn't any more unwelcoming than any other new languages when I encountered it well into my experience with programming, but a number of languages I encountered much earlier in my programming life (BASIC, Forth, Logo, x86 ASM, among others) weren't Algol-family languages.
yogthos 11y ago
The fact is that there aren't actually more parens than most languages. Take a look at any JavaScript code base and you'll see far more parens there. One benefit of Lisp syntax is that it provides you visual information about relationships in the code, since it's structured as tree. The nesting tells you how functions relate to each other at a glance. It makes the code easily scannable, once you're used to reading it. Another big advantage is that you can use a structural editor with Lisp. You don't actually manage parens by hand, the editor does it for you. You can see it in action here. https://cursive-ide.com/userguide/paredit.html https://cursive-ide.com/userguide/paredit.html The syntax is actually one of the easiest ones to learn, because there is very little of it and it's very consistent. Just because it's not familiar, doesn't mean it's hard to learn. I use Clojure at work and I regularly train co-op students. I haven't had a student who took longer than a couple of weeks to become productive with the language, or didn't love using it. However, most had a negative reaction to the syntax initially.

jfaucett 11y ago

Exactly this. I've actually never met a person who has used a lisp to build software and complained about parens. I have the feeling parens are like functional language syntax, just something foreign which seems annoying or pointless until you actually start using the tools for a significant time and learn the benefits that arise from what initially seemed strange and alien.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Most (but not all) people who have used lisp for significant projects find that they either like the parens or are simply neutral about them. There's a substantial selection bias there in that people who have strongly negative feelings about parens have plenty of opportunities in the field to work with languages without them, so the only people likely to put up with them on significant projects are ones who feel positively, neutrally, or perhaps only weakly negatively about the feature from the start. That said, I do think the complaints about that particular feature are overblown, much the way those about Python's particular whitespace handling are.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rgoddard 11y ago
I think this is related to the fact that our own internal parsers that have been trained upon c-style code falls about when trying to read list code. So the dislike is not due to the number of parenthesis, but rather our own internal discord when trying to apply our existing mental parsers. The only way to get around this is to spend enough time using the language so that you can build a new mental parser.

cageface 11y ago

I did quite a bit of Common Lisp coding back in the day and I never grew to like the syntax. I felt it was the price I had to pay for macros, but otherwise found it awkward.

mej10 11y ago
Did you ever learn Paredit? Once I did, editing any other type of code became awkward in comparison.

calgoo 11y ago

When i was testing out clojure a few months back, it took me around 4 to 6 hours to get used to them. After that, my eyes where just ignoring them and the code looks very much like a C type syntax.