3 ms·

It is a true statement, lisp syntax is wierd. You spend years learning that 2 + 2 = 4, seeing (+ 2 2) for the first time is a bit of a shock. The point is ove

It is a true statement, lisp syntax is wierd. You spend years learning that 2 + 2 = 4, seeing (+ 2 2) for the first time is a bit of a shock. The point is overused but its a good point and he doesnt dwell on it. Arguments shouldnt be evaluated just by how interesting they are.

zsck 9y ago
The parent post shouldn't be interpreted as dismissing the argument because it isn't interesting but because it has been beaten to death. It's the kind of argument that has been had from every meaningful angle and the programming community has, unless I'm wildly mistaken, settled on a few conclusions regarding it. Like a lot of things, one conclusion is simply that Lisp syntax being good, bad, easy or difficult to read comes down in part to preference of the individual. Of course there are other conclusions as well, but the point is that dwelling on the subject is generally not a productive use of time. It's so old and popular to discuss that very little of value comes from discussing it further, and repeating the arguments is both distracting and potentially even discouraging for some less experienced programmers.
msla 9y ago
Algol syntax is weird. Tell me, what does this mean? x = x + 5 Obviously, it's a null statement. It's nonsense. x cannot equal x + 5 because that means 0 = 5 and, therefore, 0 = 1 and, therefore, all mathematics is broken. However, most Algols are completely happy to accept that statement, something we learned was nonsensical way back in our childhoods, as not only valid but as the only way of doing things. My point is, there is no such thing as a natural syntax. They're all weird. They all have to be learned. Some provide more benefits than others after they've been learned. (Also: You're only a newbie once. Optimizing for that one-time thing is a bit odd, when you'll spend far more of your life as an experienced programmer.)
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  That's precisely why Algol used ':=' for assignment ;-}
  - msla 9y ago
    Eh, C/Java is an Algol, too. You know, like how Scala/Scheme is a Lisp.
    - ScottBurson 9y ago
      I think it was Fortran that first used plain "=" for assignment; and C is a descendant of Fortran as much as of Algol. So that might have been a more appropriate reference.

zsck 9y ago

The parent post shouldn't be interpreted as dismissing the argument because it isn't interesting but because it has been beaten to death. It's the kind of argument that has been had from every meaningful angle and the programming community has, unless I'm wildly mistaken, settled on a few conclusions regarding it. Like a lot of things, one conclusion is simply that Lisp syntax being good, bad, easy or difficult to read comes down in part to preference of the individual. Of course there are other conclusions as well, but the point is that dwelling on the subject is generally not a productive use of time. It's so old and popular to discuss that very little of value comes from discussing it further, and repeating the arguments is both distracting and potentially even discouraging for some less experienced programmers.

msla 9y ago

Algol syntax is weird. Tell me, what does this mean? x = x + 5 Obviously, it's a null statement. It's nonsense. x cannot equal x + 5 because that means 0 = 5 and, therefore, 0 = 1 and, therefore, all mathematics is broken. However, most Algols are completely happy to accept that statement, something we learned was nonsensical way back in our childhoods, as not only valid but as the only way of doing things. My point is, there is no such thing as a natural syntax. They're all weird. They all have to be learned. Some provide more benefits than others after they've been learned. (Also: You're only a newbie once. Optimizing for that one-time thing is a bit odd, when you'll spend far more of your life as an experienced programmer.)

ScottBurson 9y ago
That's precisely why Algol used ':=' for assignment ;-}
- msla 9y ago
  Eh, C/Java is an Algol, too. You know, like how Scala/Scheme is a Lisp.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    I think it was Fortran that first used plain "=" for assignment; and C is a descendant of Fortran as much as of Algol. So that might have been a more appropriate reference.