3 ms·

As a lisp user, I would argue that infix syntax, while it appears simpler, puts a lot of cognitive load on the reader that lispers don't have to worry about. In

As a lisp user, I would argue that infix syntax, while it appears simpler, puts a lot of cognitive load on the reader that lispers don't have to worry about. In an infix syntax, you have to worry about getting the syntax right, avoiding syntactic ambiguity, and making sure your precedence order is correct. In languages like C++ or Haskell, this can get very complicated. Think of it this way: infix syntax is just another form of DWIM. The computer is trying to act like it thinks the way you do. However, it doesn't, and because it's pretending to, bugs happen. Lisp doesn't pretend, and this helps to avoid bugs.

wvenable 10y ago
I'd argue the differences in syntax in other languages actually make reading the code easier. The consistency of Lisp makes it harder for humans to read. Infix is such a small percentage of what I do, it hardly matters. And where it's extremely critical, I have to share with non-programmer humans so consistency there helps.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  IMO, it makes it harder for humans to learn, but not to read once they have. >I have to share with non-programmer humans Non-programmers read your code?
  - wvenable 10y ago
    > IMO, it makes it harder for humans to learn, but not to read once they have. Why would it be harder to learn yet easier to read? If anything it's syntax is easier to learn (because there is so little syntax) but harder to read (also because their is so little syntax) and harder to understand (because the syntax doesn't reveal as much semantics).
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      What I meant is that there's a steeper learning curve to actually reading it. But once you do, it beats everything else in readability and writability.
      - wvenable 10y ago
        I get your point. I don't think I believe you, but I get your point.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, to some degree. If you agreed with me, you'd probably already be a lisper.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

wvenable 10y ago

I'd argue the differences in syntax in other languages actually make reading the code easier. The consistency of Lisp makes it harder for humans to read. Infix is such a small percentage of what I do, it hardly matters. And where it's extremely critical, I have to share with non-programmer humans so consistency there helps.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
IMO, it makes it harder for humans to learn, but not to read once they have. >I have to share with non-programmer humans Non-programmers read your code?
- wvenable 10y ago
  > IMO, it makes it harder for humans to learn, but not to read once they have. Why would it be harder to learn yet easier to read? If anything it's syntax is easier to learn (because there is so little syntax) but harder to read (also because their is so little syntax) and harder to understand (because the syntax doesn't reveal as much semantics).
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    What I meant is that there's a steeper learning curve to actually reading it. But once you do, it beats everything else in readability and writability.
    - wvenable 10y ago
      I get your point. I don't think I believe you, but I get your point.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        It's ultimately a matter of personal preference, to some degree. If you agreed with me, you'd probably already be a lisper.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]