4 ms·

> Julia base syntax is closer to how people write math As someone who is a Julia fan, but has a background from mathematics rather than computer science, I don

by Oreb 7y ago

> Julia base syntax is closer to how people write math As someone who is a Julia fan, but has a background from mathematics rather than computer science, I don't agree. Julia syntax resembles mathematics only on a very superficial typographic level that have little actual significance when reading or writing code. Mathematical notation, unlike code, is fundamentally two-dimensional, with vertically written fractions, subscripts and superscripts, etc. Simple mathematical expressions are easy to read in both Julia and S-expression notation. More complicated expressions are hard to read in Julia (I sometimes have to write them out by hand on paper in order to understand them), while the same expressions written in properly indented S-expression syntax with a generous use of newlines are easy to read. They are somehow structurally more similar to standard 2-dimensional mathematical notation, despite the superficial infix vs prefix differences. What attracted me in the first place to Common Lisp (my first programming language) as a person with no technical skills or experience was the friendly and intuitive syntax. It was the first programming language I saw that didn't look visually intimidating. These days I use Julia, but I use it for the awesome features, libraries and community, not for the syntax. I would love Julia even more if it used S-expressions.

ddragon 7y ago
The superficial typographic level is the difference, I was mostly talking about first impressions. Though you probably shouldn't really allow your expression to get to the point that it's hard to read in Julia (for example abusing broadcast to create overly complex one-liners). At this point you should probably break it in multiple variables and functions. And as Julia gets more mature and popular, I wouldn't be surprised if more people notice the strength of it's ecosystem and start creating new language that targets it, just like Elixir and Erlang or all JVM machines (and something more than just reader macros like LispSyntax.jl, like having full editor support and exclusive features that makes it unique compared to Julia). A JuliaLisp could have an amazing interop with the main language, and serve as an alternative for those who prefer s-expr.

by Oreb 7y ago

ddragon 7y ago

The superficial typographic level is the difference, I was mostly talking about first impressions. Though you probably shouldn't really allow your expression to get to the point that it's hard to read in Julia (for example abusing broadcast to create overly complex one-liners). At this point you should probably break it in multiple variables and functions. And as Julia gets more mature and popular, I wouldn't be surprised if more people notice the strength of it's ecosystem and start creating new language that targets it, just like Elixir and Erlang or all JVM machines (and something more than just reader macros like LispSyntax.jl, like having full editor support and exclusive features that makes it unique compared to Julia). A JuliaLisp could have an amazing interop with the main language, and serve as an alternative for those who prefer s-expr.