3 ms·

People who can't get over the syntax never actually get Lisp. So tired of hearing this from Lisp zealots. There are actually many intelligent people that under

People who can't get over the syntax never actually get Lisp. So tired of hearing this from Lisp zealots. There are actually many intelligent people that understand lisp but don't think the plusses of the syntax outweigh the minuses.

cmiles74 16y ago
I took this as meaning that the people who are really interested in reading and writing Lisp code eventually get over or even grow to appreciate s-expressions. Given that's the case, who are these people that would like to read and write Lisp but can't get past the parenthesis? Is there really a market for an alternate Lisp syntax? I think there probably is not. As you point out, there are many solid language choices that do not have Lispy syntax and a lot of very smart people being very productive with them. If the syntax bothers a person enough, this alternate syntax probably won't help.
- merijnv 16y ago
  I agree with the grandparent that (contrary to the vague group of Lisp zealots mentioned) understand Lisp and hate the parentheses. On the other hand I also agree with you that there is probably not market/interest in this group of people to learn "Lisp with an alternate syntax". As someone with an interest in programming languages I do feel I have reasonable grasp on Lisp's s-expressions, but I dislike the parentheses syntax. However I don't think an alternate syntax would help me, most Lisp would still be parenthesis Lisp... I think most of people like me instead flock to functional languages like Haskell. As I mentioned in an earlier Haskell discussion I think Lisp's macros are probably more powerful (in the sense that they can express more then Haskell code), but like a lot of Haskell coders I just don't agree with the Lispers that this (slight?) increase in expressibility is worth the loss of readable Haskell syntax.
  - aerique 16y ago
    Are you from a maths background? I'm not and having played with Haskell a little the syntax is a real turn-off for me. For me Lisp is a lot more readable.
    - merijnv 16y ago
      No, I have a CS background, my first languages were Java and Python. I only started looking into the math related to programming languages after Haskell. Do you have any examples of. Which syntax makes it unclear to you? I think the uniformity of Lisp syntax makes it hard to scan and find the various parts I'm interested in. Especially the quote operators can be nefariously easy to gloss over...
      - aerique 16y ago
        I guess it's just a matter of experience then, I find Lisp pretty easy to scan through. So we can debate this until the end of time apparently. :-) With regard to Haskell the original post eloquently sum up most of my problems with it (and then so more). edit: Haha, I thought this thread was attached to the "Lisk" topic (Lisp syntax for Haskell) that's what I meant with "original post" above.
        merijnv 16y ago
        Ah, I saw the Lisk topic, and while agree that Haskell's very exact whitespace could be annoying without a good editor (mine automatically indents correctly anyway so I never have problems), if its such a big deal you could just use {} and semi-colons as that is valid syntax as well. You only have to do exact whitespacing if you don't use those, although it might be easier to just use a decent editor instead.
- cageface 16y ago
  If your goal is to learn Lisp, then you get over it. If your goal is to find a good, modern, productive programming language and you approach this goal without preconceptions then you evaluate s-exprs/macros as another language feature with tradeoffs like any other. Plenty of capable engineers understand the Lisp gestalt but just don't find it compelling enough to put up with a syntax they find unpalatable.

cmiles74 16y ago

I took this as meaning that the people who are really interested in reading and writing Lisp code eventually get over or even grow to appreciate s-expressions. Given that's the case, who are these people that would like to read and write Lisp but can't get past the parenthesis? Is there really a market for an alternate Lisp syntax? I think there probably is not. As you point out, there are many solid language choices that do not have Lispy syntax and a lot of very smart people being very productive with them. If the syntax bothers a person enough, this alternate syntax probably won't help.

merijnv 16y ago
I agree with the grandparent that (contrary to the vague group of Lisp zealots mentioned) understand Lisp and hate the parentheses. On the other hand I also agree with you that there is probably not market/interest in this group of people to learn "Lisp with an alternate syntax". As someone with an interest in programming languages I do feel I have reasonable grasp on Lisp's s-expressions, but I dislike the parentheses syntax. However I don't think an alternate syntax would help me, most Lisp would still be parenthesis Lisp... I think most of people like me instead flock to functional languages like Haskell. As I mentioned in an earlier Haskell discussion I think Lisp's macros are probably more powerful (in the sense that they can express more then Haskell code), but like a lot of Haskell coders I just don't agree with the Lispers that this (slight?) increase in expressibility is worth the loss of readable Haskell syntax.
- aerique 16y ago
  Are you from a maths background? I'm not and having played with Haskell a little the syntax is a real turn-off for me. For me Lisp is a lot more readable.
  - merijnv 16y ago
    No, I have a CS background, my first languages were Java and Python. I only started looking into the math related to programming languages after Haskell. Do you have any examples of. Which syntax makes it unclear to you? I think the uniformity of Lisp syntax makes it hard to scan and find the various parts I'm interested in. Especially the quote operators can be nefariously easy to gloss over...
    - aerique 16y ago
      I guess it's just a matter of experience then, I find Lisp pretty easy to scan through. So we can debate this until the end of time apparently. :-) With regard to Haskell the original post eloquently sum up most of my problems with it (and then so more). edit: Haha, I thought this thread was attached to the "Lisk" topic (Lisp syntax for Haskell) that's what I meant with "original post" above.
      - merijnv 16y ago
        Ah, I saw the Lisk topic, and while agree that Haskell's very exact whitespace could be annoying without a good editor (mine automatically indents correctly anyway so I never have problems), if its such a big deal you could just use {} and semi-colons as that is valid syntax as well. You only have to do exact whitespacing if you don't use those, although it might be easier to just use a decent editor instead.
cageface 16y ago
If your goal is to learn Lisp, then you get over it. If your goal is to find a good, modern, productive programming language and you approach this goal without preconceptions then you evaluate s-exprs/macros as another language feature with tradeoffs like any other. Plenty of capable engineers understand the Lisp gestalt but just don't find it compelling enough to put up with a syntax they find unpalatable.