4 ms·

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.

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.

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.