3 ms·

I think it's about visual parsing. They may be greater in number in C derived languages but it's not idiomatic or considered clean by anyone to write it as you

I think it's about visual parsing. They may be greater in number in C derived languages but it's not idiomatic or considered clean by anyone to write it as you did, where it's typical to see things like )))))) in lisp. If there were multiple markers stacked up in a C based language they'd be visually distinguished from one another ];} and you'd at least have a chance. Look, we can get used to anything so clearly the lisp way can work. But it seems pretty straightforward to me why people think it's visually confusing and why lisp gets made fun of. Simplicity in syntax is great but lisp really overdid it. If you invented a human language that could get by with only 12 letters, I wouldn't give you kudos for that because of the general principle that simplicity is good...

agumonkey 9y ago
I understand and appreciate syntactic classification. But it's a false thing. It makes you care about syntax more than semantics.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
There have been at least three attempts to change the syntax of Lisp, so that it looks more like Algol: Lisp 2, CGOL, and Dylan. None of these gained much traction. Lisp programmers prefer the parentheses. When you autoindent, the indentation of the code makes its underlying structure (AST) clear without having to count either parentheses in Lisp or braces in C. By the 1970s, autoindenting editors (EMACS) and structure editors had been developed for Lisp. In the C/Unix world, until recently, indentation and parenthesis/brace counting had to be done by hand. Among C programmers (but not, to their credit, Java programmers) there are still arguments about code layout, a problem solved decades ago for Lisp.
- kazinator 9y ago
  > In the C/Unix world, until recently, indentation and parenthesis/brace counting had to be done by hand. Nope! The vi editor has a :set lisp mode, and a % command to jump to matching parens. I think that was already in vi in the 1980's. FWIW, % is described in POSIX; Lisp mode isn't.
  - DonaldFisk 9y ago
    Ta. I just tried it. If it's all the same with you I think I'll stick with Emacs. :-) What I was trying to say is that these things are easier to do by hand in C than in Lisp, but more difficult to do algorithmically, and this discouraged people developing syntax-aware editors, and encouraged the plethora of competing C styles. In the Lisp world, the difficulty of doing these by hand resulted in earlier syntax aware editors and the consensus on style.
    - kazinator 9y ago
      In Lisp style, there is a "local maximum" (global?). Deviations from the style are obvious losers. In C, there are many choices, which are all viable. int main(void) { FILE *f = fopen("commands", "r"); if (f) { char line[512]; while (fgets(line, sizeof line, f)) { ... } fclose(f); return 0; } else { printf("failed to open file\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } }
      - DonaldFisk 9y ago
        The many choices available for C are the problem. I write C in K&R style, but that makes me a heretic in many places. Java programmers have sensibly agreed on a single style, despite there being as many choices for Java as there are for C.
flavio81 9y ago
The thing is, if you actually set yourself out to create an application in Lisp, and you do learn the language and the tools made for programming in that language, not only you will have no problem with parentheses... ... but you also will find that most of your code is highly readable! Lisp code (or at least Common Lisp code) can be highly readable. I never need to count parenthesis to understand code. The indentation itself makes the structure obvious. And if there is any doubt, the editor (say, Emacs) will tell me where each expression ends. > "But it seems pretty straightforward to me why people think it's visually confusing and why lisp gets made fun of." "Appearances" are not the same as "reality".

agumonkey 9y ago

I understand and appreciate syntactic classification. But it's a false thing. It makes you care about syntax more than semantics.

DonaldFisk 9y ago

There have been at least three attempts to change the syntax of Lisp, so that it looks more like Algol: Lisp 2, CGOL, and Dylan. None of these gained much traction. Lisp programmers prefer the parentheses. When you autoindent, the indentation of the code makes its underlying structure (AST) clear without having to count either parentheses in Lisp or braces in C. By the 1970s, autoindenting editors (EMACS) and structure editors had been developed for Lisp. In the C/Unix world, until recently, indentation and parenthesis/brace counting had to be done by hand. Among C programmers (but not, to their credit, Java programmers) there are still arguments about code layout, a problem solved decades ago for Lisp.

kazinator 9y ago
> In the C/Unix world, until recently, indentation and parenthesis/brace counting had to be done by hand. Nope! The vi editor has a :set lisp mode, and a % command to jump to matching parens. I think that was already in vi in the 1980's. FWIW, % is described in POSIX; Lisp mode isn't.
- DonaldFisk 9y ago
  Ta. I just tried it. If it's all the same with you I think I'll stick with Emacs. :-) What I was trying to say is that these things are easier to do by hand in C than in Lisp, but more difficult to do algorithmically, and this discouraged people developing syntax-aware editors, and encouraged the plethora of competing C styles. In the Lisp world, the difficulty of doing these by hand resulted in earlier syntax aware editors and the consensus on style.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    In Lisp style, there is a "local maximum" (global?). Deviations from the style are obvious losers. In C, there are many choices, which are all viable. int main(void) { FILE *f = fopen("commands", "r"); if (f) { char line[512]; while (fgets(line, sizeof line, f)) { ... } fclose(f); return 0; } else { printf("failed to open file\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } }
    - DonaldFisk 9y ago
      The many choices available for C are the problem. I write C in K&R style, but that makes me a heretic in many places. Java programmers have sensibly agreed on a single style, despite there being as many choices for Java as there are for C.

flavio81 9y ago

The thing is, if you actually set yourself out to create an application in Lisp, and you do learn the language and the tools made for programming in that language, not only you will have no problem with parentheses... ... but you also will find that most of your code is highly readable! Lisp code (or at least Common Lisp code) can be highly readable. I never need to count parenthesis to understand code. The indentation itself makes the structure obvious. And if there is any doubt, the editor (say, Emacs) will tell me where each expression ends. > "But it seems pretty straightforward to me why people think it's visually confusing and why lisp gets made fun of." "Appearances" are not the same as "reality".