3 ms·

Try writing out typical mathematical formula derivations using only s-expressions. I tried for a period and abandoned the persuit. It’s just not comparable to e

• michaelmrose 8y ago
  Two solutions. Threading macros wherein instead of nested parens like (x (y (z))) one writes ((->> z) y x) In clojure there is an interesting package https://github.com/rplevy/swiss-arrows https://github.com/rplevy/swiss-arrows which allows one to perform successive operations with explicit placement of the result of prior evaluation by placing a <> in the form ((->> (z <>)) (y <> 7) (x <>)) In practice it seems like there is often less need to do so as many similar functions or the same variety have the same ordering and other options like as-> exist too. There is also the idea of processing math expressions infix as expected when desired. https://github.com/rm-hull/infix https://github.com/rm-hull/infix ($= 3 + 5 * 8) ; => 43
• ken 8y ago
  The Lisp community has literally tried exactly this, on and off, for the past half century -- and they always come back to s-expressions. Every new Lisp programmers says "I know, I'll make a macro to let me write infix math!", and then abandons it 2 months later. It's not like Lisp programmers aren't aware of how schoolchildren write (+ 2 2). I've written tons of code in both language families. In infix/prefix (i.e., Algol-family) languages, I frequently wish for a nice consistent prefix syntax. In prefix-only (i.e., Lisp-family) languages, I can't say I've ever wished for infix notation. I don't understand what the perceived issue is with infix notation, except for unfamiliarity -- and that passes soon enough.