2 ms·
I like both lisp and forth, but also think more syntax is useful for humans - both lisp and forth essentially demand that you program in ASTs directly, rather t
by e12e 9y ago
I like both lisp and forth, but also think more syntax is useful for humans - both lisp and forth essentially demand that you program in ASTs directly, rather than some higher level abstraction/more pleasant.... Typography? Advanced semantic grammar?
I'm not sure the ease of macro implementation is worth it. I'd love to see more efforts like Dylan. Or different kind of simplicity, like Smalltalk.
- andreasgonewild 9y agoYou're not alone in still mourning Dylan... But the more code I write, the more I appreciate languages that stay out of my way until I ask for help; besides Lisp & Forth that basically means C/C++. Elaborate syntax, no matter how convenient; will always become an obstacle at some point. You might think it's funny to see C++ in that list, but these days its possible to use it as a static Common Lisp with crippled macros; Snabels implementation is a testament to that. I was deeply in love with the idea of Smalltalk for a long time, but big pieces of code turn spongy on me as soon as I pass a certain level of complexity. I need more types than that, which is why Snabel had parameterized types from day one.
- e12e 9y agoA reminder to others, and a note-to-self that readable-lisp exists: http://wiki.c2.com/?SweetExpressions http://wiki.c2.com/?SweetExpressions The wiki page makes a valid point; seemingly heavy lisp users will argue against non-s-expression syntax, but happily use prefix notation for quote, and infix for pairs...