5 ms·

Because not everyone agrees (thankfully!) that syntax is uninteresting or irrelevant, or that Lisp is some amazing global aesthetic or ergonomic maximum.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Why thankfully?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Because syntax actually does matter, and Lisp is only a local maximum. Thinking otherwise causes pain, as people try to use Lisp in situations where it is not the best answer, and is therefore harder to use than other languages. So, "thankfully", because acknowledging reality here means not having to live with the pain of using a language that is sub-optimal for the problem you're working on.
  - taeric 8y ago
    This is overstating the case for syntax. Without any empirical evidence that syntax is important to anyone other than folks that draft up syntax rules, this is just an assertion. Put another way, do you have evidence that it is important? Has it let people write better programs? How would you prove that? This is akin to saying grammar is important. It is, to an extent; but over adherence to grammar is usually not an effective way to communicate.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Well, empirically, syntax is important to a large number of programmers who complain about Lisp's (lack of) syntax. That's not a rigorous empirical study, but it's the best I can do at the moment...
      - taeric 8y ago
        I assert most programmers have not been exposed to lisp. I further assert most that complain of it's lack of syntax have not used it in any capacity. I would be interested in studies on this. Most I ever see is posturing and assertions with little to no evidence. Frustrating, because I think both sides have valid points. And I fully believe there is a learning curve both ways. I suspect they both converge on total ability. I am genuinely interested in ideas on how that could be explored.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I think it's going to be really hard to do the study in a rigorous way. Solid data would be nice, though. Then we could stop guessing. My best try at a data point is that Lisp was #4 on the TIOBE index back in the 1980s. Now it's on the fringe. I assert that people had been exposed to Lisp, it was widely used. It became less and less popular. It's not that industry didn't know Lisp; they knew it and turned away from it. Of course, the big flaw in my argument is the growth of the industry. A huge number of new people came in. Did they know Lisp, even at a college level? Maybe, maybe not. My counter-argument to that is that industry knew Lisp, even if the new programmers didn't. If industry wanted them to learn Lisp, it could have made knowing it a job requirement, or trained people.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > My best try at a data point is that Lisp was #4 on the TIOBE index back in the 1980s. Unlikely, given that TIOBE the company wasn't founded until 2000, and the TIOBE index is based on web search engine results, and there weren't any web search engines, or a web for them to search, in the 1980s.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ has historical data going back to 1988. (Presumably they used a different methodology for the older data.) But I remembered wrong. They list Lisp as #2 in 1988.

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago

Why thankfully?

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Because syntax actually does matter, and Lisp is only a local maximum. Thinking otherwise causes pain, as people try to use Lisp in situations where it is not the best answer, and is therefore harder to use than other languages. So, "thankfully", because acknowledging reality here means not having to live with the pain of using a language that is sub-optimal for the problem you're working on.
- taeric 8y ago
  This is overstating the case for syntax. Without any empirical evidence that syntax is important to anyone other than folks that draft up syntax rules, this is just an assertion. Put another way, do you have evidence that it is important? Has it let people write better programs? How would you prove that? This is akin to saying grammar is important. It is, to an extent; but over adherence to grammar is usually not an effective way to communicate.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Well, empirically, syntax is important to a large number of programmers who complain about Lisp's (lack of) syntax. That's not a rigorous empirical study, but it's the best I can do at the moment...
    - taeric 8y ago
      I assert most programmers have not been exposed to lisp. I further assert most that complain of it's lack of syntax have not used it in any capacity. I would be interested in studies on this. Most I ever see is posturing and assertions with little to no evidence. Frustrating, because I think both sides have valid points. And I fully believe there is a learning curve both ways. I suspect they both converge on total ability. I am genuinely interested in ideas on how that could be explored.
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        I think it's going to be really hard to do the study in a rigorous way. Solid data would be nice, though. Then we could stop guessing. My best try at a data point is that Lisp was #4 on the TIOBE index back in the 1980s. Now it's on the fringe. I assert that people had been exposed to Lisp, it was widely used. It became less and less popular. It's not that industry didn't know Lisp; they knew it and turned away from it. Of course, the big flaw in my argument is the growth of the industry. A huge number of new people came in. Did they know Lisp, even at a college level? Maybe, maybe not. My counter-argument to that is that industry knew Lisp, even if the new programmers didn't. If industry wanted them to learn Lisp, it could have made knowing it a job requirement, or trained people.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > My best try at a data point is that Lisp was #4 on the TIOBE index back in the 1980s. Unlikely, given that TIOBE the company wasn't founded until 2000, and the TIOBE index is based on web search engine results, and there weren't any web search engines, or a web for them to search, in the 1980s.
        AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ has historical data going back to 1988. (Presumably they used a different methodology for the older data.) But I remembered wrong. They list Lisp as #2 in 1988.