5 ms·

If you're unwilling to let go of your pre-conceived notions of what syntax is supposed to be, sure. I find clojure code really ugly, like it secretly wants to b

If you're unwilling to let go of your pre-conceived notions of what syntax is supposed to be, sure. I find clojure code really ugly, like it secretly wants to be javascript but can't commit to it. Pure s-expression code is very pleasing on the eyes once you get used to it.

keymone 10y ago
If you're unable to let go of biases formed by previous experiences - why should i listen to you? I find clojure code really beautiful, like by letting go pre-conceived notions of "everything is a list" had really unleashed the power of concise, immutable and predictable data structures. Pure s-expression code puts unnecessary mental strain on a developer because a multitude of semantics is attached to single kind of parens without any practical or pragmatic reason to do so, as if early lispers didn't have other kinds of parens or didn't have other useful data structures and subsequently a need to denote them concisely.
- lacampbell 10y ago
  These just sound like complaints from a typical novice to LISP. LISP syntax is made of nested lists (an AST) and atoms. Representing sequential types as atoms with ugly reader macros based on the implementation of said sequential types strikes someone who knows a real LISP language as an ugly and ignorant thing to do. If you find real LISP code unreadable because it doesn't look like javascript - because you can't tell when your sequence is a linked list or an array when there's no curly braces - I suggest learning to read and write LISP code and understand how LISP works. A real LISP I mean, not clojure. Again, other LISPs have data structures aren't from linked list. A complete myth that that they only use linked lists.
  - keymone 10y ago
    These sound just like ramblings of typical elitist. If your main concern is to have language that only appeals to other elitists - you'll take that language to grave with you. Syntax is something novices judge the language by. Their criticism is not always valid, but if language can make concessions that don't undermine it's core values but lower the learning curve - there is literally no reason to not make these concessions. No reasons apart from elitism and purism that is and those are just plain stupid. Clojure is great example of lisp that is easier to grasp (one of main reason being sane use of data literals) but still remains lisp all the way down to it's core.
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      I don't know if understanding LISP is really elitism. I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it. I think the key reason people have the attitude against the syntax is because they learned languages that looked a certain way, and to them - that's programming damn it. I mean LISP syntax is objectively much more simple. I think if you were to sit programming novices - with no pre-conceived notions - infront of an s-expression language and an ALGOL looking one, you wouldn't find much difference on which is easier to learn. I genuinely think people have difficulty letting go of stuff when they learn LISP. When I first started I thought all the parens were silly as well, and I thought stuff like sweet-expressions [1] were clearly the way forward and it was only those stuffy old elitist scheme programmers who couldn't see it. But over time I saw that the simplicity and regularity of s-expressions made it worth it. Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax into LISP reminds me of nothing so much as training wheels on a bicycle. Sure I suppose you can call those of us who ride a bicycle with two simple wheels "elitsts" and accuse of rejecting "convenience", but to be honest when I see people defending ugly literals and complicating the syntax of a LISP language, I can't help but suggesting that they learn to ride a damn bike. [1] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html
      - keymone 10y ago
        > I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it yeah, exactly, it doesn't. which makes lisp elitism very awkward. > LISP syntax is objectively much more simple things can be too simple, to the point where it is counter productive and harmful. example - why do you need all these weird symbols to represent numbers 1234567890? seems like 1 does the job just fine. unary arithmetic is trivial - just stitch numbers together and you have addition, just repeat them X times and you have multiplication. no need for weird shenanigans with symbols changing because of trivial operations. > Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax i genuinely think you have difficulty letting go of your biases. all clojure did was designate two more kinds of parens to mean something useful in a language. it's a tradeoff between being pure lisp and being easier to grasp while still remaining lisp. but i can see now, tradeoffs are hard to understand for elitists/purists. i wonder if every time when you buy a keyboard/laptop you're ripping off those damn [] and {}. because your arguments are unreasonable enough to think that might actually be true.

keymone 10y ago

If you're unable to let go of biases formed by previous experiences - why should i listen to you? I find clojure code really beautiful, like by letting go pre-conceived notions of "everything is a list" had really unleashed the power of concise, immutable and predictable data structures. Pure s-expression code puts unnecessary mental strain on a developer because a multitude of semantics is attached to single kind of parens without any practical or pragmatic reason to do so, as if early lispers didn't have other kinds of parens or didn't have other useful data structures and subsequently a need to denote them concisely.

lacampbell 10y ago
These just sound like complaints from a typical novice to LISP. LISP syntax is made of nested lists (an AST) and atoms. Representing sequential types as atoms with ugly reader macros based on the implementation of said sequential types strikes someone who knows a real LISP language as an ugly and ignorant thing to do. If you find real LISP code unreadable because it doesn't look like javascript - because you can't tell when your sequence is a linked list or an array when there's no curly braces - I suggest learning to read and write LISP code and understand how LISP works. A real LISP I mean, not clojure. Again, other LISPs have data structures aren't from linked list. A complete myth that that they only use linked lists.
- keymone 10y ago
  These sound just like ramblings of typical elitist. If your main concern is to have language that only appeals to other elitists - you'll take that language to grave with you. Syntax is something novices judge the language by. Their criticism is not always valid, but if language can make concessions that don't undermine it's core values but lower the learning curve - there is literally no reason to not make these concessions. No reasons apart from elitism and purism that is and those are just plain stupid. Clojure is great example of lisp that is easier to grasp (one of main reason being sane use of data literals) but still remains lisp all the way down to it's core.
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    I don't know if understanding LISP is really elitism. I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it. I think the key reason people have the attitude against the syntax is because they learned languages that looked a certain way, and to them - that's programming damn it. I mean LISP syntax is objectively much more simple. I think if you were to sit programming novices - with no pre-conceived notions - infront of an s-expression language and an ALGOL looking one, you wouldn't find much difference on which is easier to learn. I genuinely think people have difficulty letting go of stuff when they learn LISP. When I first started I thought all the parens were silly as well, and I thought stuff like sweet-expressions [1] were clearly the way forward and it was only those stuffy old elitist scheme programmers who couldn't see it. But over time I saw that the simplicity and regularity of s-expressions made it worth it. Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax into LISP reminds me of nothing so much as training wheels on a bicycle. Sure I suppose you can call those of us who ride a bicycle with two simple wheels "elitsts" and accuse of rejecting "convenience", but to be honest when I see people defending ugly literals and complicating the syntax of a LISP language, I can't help but suggesting that they learn to ride a damn bike. [1] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/srfi-110.html
    - keymone 10y ago
      > I don't think it requires some great intellect to get it yeah, exactly, it doesn't. which makes lisp elitism very awkward. > LISP syntax is objectively much more simple things can be too simple, to the point where it is counter productive and harmful. example - why do you need all these weird symbols to represent numbers 1234567890? seems like 1 does the job just fine. unary arithmetic is trivial - just stitch numbers together and you have addition, just repeat them X times and you have multiplication. no need for weird shenanigans with symbols changing because of trivial operations. > Clojures awkward smashing together of javascriptish syntax i genuinely think you have difficulty letting go of your biases. all clojure did was designate two more kinds of parens to mean something useful in a language. it's a tradeoff between being pure lisp and being easier to grasp while still remaining lisp. but i can see now, tradeoffs are hard to understand for elitists/purists. i wonder if every time when you buy a keyboard/laptop you're ripping off those damn [] and {}. because your arguments are unreasonable enough to think that might actually be true.