5 ms·

I find it very hard to work with a mixture of brackets and parentheses. Does anyone else prefer an all-parentheses syntax for reading and typing?

markx 10y ago
I actually prefer the mixture. It's a better visional cue.
yarrel 10y ago
Yes. The switch between different pairs if you're not using just parentheses is a real cognitive load.
mschaef 10y ago
I don't mind either syntax, but what's essential is an editor that highlights balancing parens, etc.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  Hence why I love Emacs: http://melpa.milkbox.net/#/hl-anything http://melpa.milkbox.net/#/hl-anything
krylon 10y ago
In a Lispy context, I find brackets confusing. But then again, I don't know Clojure. (To me, it is a context thing, I think - in lagnuages like C/C#, there parens, brackets, parentheses and even angle brackets flying around, and it is not a problem at all.)
wavegeek 10y ago
I agree. I recently had to write a project in Ruby and all this random syntax is driving me mad.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hkjgkjy 10y ago
Well, in most cases `[]` is used just like you'd use a quoted list `'()`. Clojure vectors are nice for the performance they give. Having maps with `{}` syntax is also nice if you ask me. Makes reading a little bit faster.
- junke 10y ago
  > Clojure vectors are nice for the performance they give. What difference does it make when representing code?
  - weavejester 10y ago
    Vectors eval to themselves, while lists eval to a function/macro/special-form call. Vectors also differ from lists in that they are ordered and indexed, so in macros and special forms they tend to be used to represent positional bindings.
    - junke 10y ago
      This has nothing to do with performance. Also, there is no such clear distinction in how vectors and lists are used. You still require context to know if a vector is evaluated to itself or not, or if a list is a call. Without context, you can't say looking at [x y] which of x or/and y is being evaluated: (let [a [x y]] ...) (let [x y] ...) (fn [x y] ...) As for parenthesis, you have special cases too: (defn foo ([] (foo 0)) ([n] ...)) And sometimes, people aren't sure about what to use: https://github.com/bbatsov/clojure-style-guide/issues/64 https://github.com/bbatsov/clojure-style-guide/issues/64
  - hkjgkjy 10y ago
    What I meant was that [] when glancing just means the same as '(). I was thinking about it over the day, and realized maybe having special syntax actually is confusing - maybe "normal" lisp with only parens is better. Thanks for the eye-opener.
    - junke 10y ago
kazinator 10y ago
I hate the stupidly gratuitous use of vectors in specific syntactic roles like the denotation of variable bindings. That applies regardless of how they are spelled, be it [...] or #(...).
Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
I use [] only in certain spots for my scheme code. For binding variables in a let-block and for cond clauses. (let ([a 5] [b 6]) (display a+b)) I find this easier to parse mentally, but I can see why one wouldn't do it, especially for cond clauses where you might end up having to actually browse parens to add or remove before or after the ]. I use paredit now, so there is really no need for me to do think about parens much at all, but old habits die hard.

markx 10y ago

I actually prefer the mixture. It's a better visional cue.

yarrel 10y ago

Yes. The switch between different pairs if you're not using just parentheses is a real cognitive load.

mschaef 10y ago

I don't mind either syntax, but what's essential is an editor that highlights balancing parens, etc.

yellowapple 10y ago
Hence why I love Emacs: http://melpa.milkbox.net/#/hl-anything http://melpa.milkbox.net/#/hl-anything

krylon 10y ago

In a Lispy context, I find brackets confusing. But then again, I don't know Clojure. (To me, it is a context thing, I think - in lagnuages like C/C#, there parens, brackets, parentheses and even angle brackets flying around, and it is not a problem at all.)

wavegeek 10y ago

I agree. I recently had to write a project in Ruby and all this random syntax is driving me mad.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

hkjgkjy 10y ago

Well, in most cases `[]` is used just like you'd use a quoted list `'()`. Clojure vectors are nice for the performance they give. Having maps with `{}` syntax is also nice if you ask me. Makes reading a little bit faster.

junke 10y ago
> Clojure vectors are nice for the performance they give. What difference does it make when representing code?
- weavejester 10y ago
  Vectors eval to themselves, while lists eval to a function/macro/special-form call. Vectors also differ from lists in that they are ordered and indexed, so in macros and special forms they tend to be used to represent positional bindings.
  - junke 10y ago
    This has nothing to do with performance. Also, there is no such clear distinction in how vectors and lists are used. You still require context to know if a vector is evaluated to itself or not, or if a list is a call. Without context, you can't say looking at [x y] which of x or/and y is being evaluated: (let [a [x y]] ...) (let [x y] ...) (fn [x y] ...) As for parenthesis, you have special cases too: (defn foo ([] (foo 0)) ([n] ...)) And sometimes, people aren't sure about what to use: https://github.com/bbatsov/clojure-style-guide/issues/64 https://github.com/bbatsov/clojure-style-guide/issues/64
- hkjgkjy 10y ago
  What I meant was that [] when glancing just means the same as '(). I was thinking about it over the day, and realized maybe having special syntax actually is confusing - maybe "normal" lisp with only parens is better. Thanks for the eye-opener.
  - junke 10y ago

kazinator 10y ago

I hate the stupidly gratuitous use of vectors in specific syntactic roles like the denotation of variable bindings. That applies regardless of how they are spelled, be it [...] or #(...).

Johnny_Brahms 10y ago

I use [] only in certain spots for my scheme code. For binding variables in a let-block and for cond clauses. (let ([a 5] [b 6]) (display a+b)) I find this easier to parse mentally, but I can see why one wouldn't do it, especially for cond clauses where you might end up having to actually browse parens to add or remove before or after the ]. I use paredit now, so there is really no need for me to do think about parens much at all, but old habits die hard.