4 ms·

> That's an assumption of yours. So is the opposite viewpoint. Neither of us has a solid study that's directly relevant such that anecdotal info is all we have

by tabtab 7y ago

> That's an assumption of yours. So is the opposite viewpoint. Neither of us has a solid study that's directly relevant such that anecdotal info is all we have here either way. A good study would probably require millions of dollars. Yours is NOT the default position given the lack of such studies. > Layout of code is more than indentation. Same issue: both can do it so it's not a difference maker in comparisons. > We can write Lisp code any way we want...one might introduce the variables first and then set them...or use LET*...or I could use local functions...etc... But that's part of the "lack of standardization" that contributes to Lisp being more difficult to read. Standards and conventions are somewhat counter to "flexibility". We typically don't want overly-detailed standards (hard to remember) nor want excessive flexibility because then everybody and every spot may do things different. There is an optimum balancing point in the standards vs. flexibility spectrum. Goldilocks. And the balancing point probably varies per individual.

lispm 7y ago
One of the problems to learn a new programming language syntax is a mental block. One looks for all kinds of excuses. It's actually not that Lisp syntax is overly difficult, it's the pain of learning something new. > Yours is NOT the default position given the lack of such studies. Your view would be more interesting to me if you'd have spent some time learning to read and write Lisp code. Much of what you claim is just guessing. > Standards and conventions There are standards and conventions in Lisp code. You just don't know them. You are just guessing how difficult it might be to fly an airplane. It might be more difficult than a car, but how difficult it actually is not visible to you. You just guess that there are much fewer aircraft pilots than car drivers, and guess that flying a plane must be extremely difficult...
- tabtab 7y ago
  > Much of what you claim is just guessing. Same with you. It's not statistically safe to say that because some people do better with Lisp that everybody will given enough time. That doesn't tell us whether it's a personal fit or something more general. Your line of reasoning appears to be "I did X and got result Y, therefore if everybody else does X, they will also likely get result Y". You hopefully should recognize the statistical fallacy in that pattern. Anyhow, we are going in circles. There are no solid studies to back either of our viewpoints so we just have "anecdote fights" that don't get anywhere, which is quite common in Lisp-related debates. BeenThereDoneThat. > There are standards and conventions in Lisp code. You just don't know them. But they mostly rely on "parsing" words. I personally believe in the power of symbols. My eyes/head process most symbols much faster than words. I can't explain it, they just do. That's just my brain, although others have told me similar. If YOUR brain can process textual words as fast as symbols, that's wonderful, but may be specific to you (and other Lisp fans). Your head is NOT my head. It's not like I'm new to words such that after reading a billion words I'll finally get better. People's textual reading usually plateaus after about 5 years as adults. Throwing time at the problem won't significantly change this. Why should Lisp be different? Words are words. And sure there are standards/conventions in Lisp, but the competition also has standards/conventions such that it's not a difference maker in comparisons. The difference maker is WORDS alone versus words + symbols. (Well, Lisp has parentheses, but mostly only parentheses, unless you "invent" something custom, which makes it non-standard by definition.) And I'm not against new things, but if they don't seem to be making sufficient progress after a reasonable amount of time, I abandon them. If Lisp is unique in that it has a hockey-stick shaped benefits curve (flat for long stretches, then goes up), then it stands out from most tools. It's hard to know if it has a weird learning curve up front since there are no decent studies on it. Often fans of tools claim "just try it long enough". That's not sufficient because it's a fan habit to claim that.
  - lispm 7y ago
    > But they mostly rely on "parsing" words. And structure. > If YOUR brain can process textual words as fast as symbols, that's wonderful, but may be specific to you Most people can do that. Most text people read just consists of words. Actually reading text with special symbols is quite complex - especially if the meaning depends on a mix of prefix, infix, postfix with different operator precedence. > And sure there are standards/conventions in Lisp, but the competition also has standards/conventions such that it's not a difference maker in comparisons. You claim a difference. I claim, you are just unfamiliar with Lisp. > The difference maker is WORDS alone versus words + symbols. No, the difference is words and structure. Take for example the usual imperative code: a := 3; b := a*4; if a > b print a else print b ... That's just a vertical sequence without much structure. You can add more { and }, but the shape largely stays the same. Lisp code would look like this: (let* ((a 3) (b (* a 4))) (if (> a b) (print a) (print b))) That's much more tree-like: LET* binding binding BODY BODY BODY From that we can easily see that this is a new scope, what modifies the scope and what extent the scope has. Lisp users learn to parse these visual and structural blocks & patterns. Once one has learned the vocabulary of basic code patterns, it's getting much easier to read Lisp.
    - tabtab 7y ago
      > And structure. They both have structure so it's not a difference maker in comparisons. > Most people can do that. Most text people read just consists of words. Yes, but "do" and "do better than alternatives" are different things. I already gave examples of possible alternatives/enhancements to typical English text that would help at least my brain. I won't reinvent that sub-discussion here. > That's much more tree-like: Being tree-like and being easier to read are not necessarily the same thing. > I claim, you are just unfamiliar with Lisp. How long do you believe it's realistic to keep at it if the benefits come slow? For example, if I keep coding in Lisp heavily for 2 years and STILL find it sluggish to read, is it realistic to then give up in your book? > From that we can easily see that... Who is this "we"? I've been reading words and symbols for multiple decades in various contexts (programming, regular books, etc.). I've concluding after these decades that if used in the right spots, symbols GREATLY ENHANCE my ability to parse/grok/absorb written material IRREGARDLESS of the domain or the specific language. For example, one thing I like from C# over VB.net is that C# uses square brackets for array indexes instead of parenthesis like VB does. It improved my head's groking speed of array-related code because parentheses have multiple meanings in VB. (I'm not claiming C# is overall better, this is just one aspect.) Symbols MIXED with words (well) enhance the absorption of words. It's a ying-yang kind of thing. They COMPLIMENT each other. I truly doubt a billion years of using mostly just one OR the other will prove better than using them both. Sorry, I believe Lisp is just plain lacking there. I want my ying-yang MTV. Go play your Wordy Gurdy in Jennifer's juniper garden.

by tabtab 7y ago

lispm 7y ago

One of the problems to learn a new programming language syntax is a mental block. One looks for all kinds of excuses. It's actually not that Lisp syntax is overly difficult, it's the pain of learning something new. > Yours is NOT the default position given the lack of such studies. Your view would be more interesting to me if you'd have spent some time learning to read and write Lisp code. Much of what you claim is just guessing. > Standards and conventions There are standards and conventions in Lisp code. You just don't know them. You are just guessing how difficult it might be to fly an airplane. It might be more difficult than a car, but how difficult it actually is not visible to you. You just guess that there are much fewer aircraft pilots than car drivers, and guess that flying a plane must be extremely difficult...

tabtab 7y ago
> Much of what you claim is just guessing. Same with you. It's not statistically safe to say that because some people do better with Lisp that everybody will given enough time. That doesn't tell us whether it's a personal fit or something more general. Your line of reasoning appears to be "I did X and got result Y, therefore if everybody else does X, they will also likely get result Y". You hopefully should recognize the statistical fallacy in that pattern. Anyhow, we are going in circles. There are no solid studies to back either of our viewpoints so we just have "anecdote fights" that don't get anywhere, which is quite common in Lisp-related debates. BeenThereDoneThat. > There are standards and conventions in Lisp code. You just don't know them. But they mostly rely on "parsing" words. I personally believe in the power of symbols. My eyes/head process most symbols much faster than words. I can't explain it, they just do. That's just my brain, although others have told me similar. If YOUR brain can process textual words as fast as symbols, that's wonderful, but may be specific to you (and other Lisp fans). Your head is NOT my head. It's not like I'm new to words such that after reading a billion words I'll finally get better. People's textual reading usually plateaus after about 5 years as adults. Throwing time at the problem won't significantly change this. Why should Lisp be different? Words are words. And sure there are standards/conventions in Lisp, but the competition also has standards/conventions such that it's not a difference maker in comparisons. The difference maker is WORDS alone versus words + symbols. (Well, Lisp has parentheses, but mostly only parentheses, unless you "invent" something custom, which makes it non-standard by definition.) And I'm not against new things, but if they don't seem to be making sufficient progress after a reasonable amount of time, I abandon them. If Lisp is unique in that it has a hockey-stick shaped benefits curve (flat for long stretches, then goes up), then it stands out from most tools. It's hard to know if it has a weird learning curve up front since there are no decent studies on it. Often fans of tools claim "just try it long enough". That's not sufficient because it's a fan habit to claim that.
- lispm 7y ago
  > But they mostly rely on "parsing" words. And structure. > If YOUR brain can process textual words as fast as symbols, that's wonderful, but may be specific to you Most people can do that. Most text people read just consists of words. Actually reading text with special symbols is quite complex - especially if the meaning depends on a mix of prefix, infix, postfix with different operator precedence. > And sure there are standards/conventions in Lisp, but the competition also has standards/conventions such that it's not a difference maker in comparisons. You claim a difference. I claim, you are just unfamiliar with Lisp. > The difference maker is WORDS alone versus words + symbols. No, the difference is words and structure. Take for example the usual imperative code: a := 3; b := a*4; if a > b print a else print b ... That's just a vertical sequence without much structure. You can add more { and }, but the shape largely stays the same. Lisp code would look like this: (let* ((a 3) (b (* a 4))) (if (> a b) (print a) (print b))) That's much more tree-like: LET* binding binding BODY BODY BODY From that we can easily see that this is a new scope, what modifies the scope and what extent the scope has. Lisp users learn to parse these visual and structural blocks & patterns. Once one has learned the vocabulary of basic code patterns, it's getting much easier to read Lisp.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    > And structure. They both have structure so it's not a difference maker in comparisons. > Most people can do that. Most text people read just consists of words. Yes, but "do" and "do better than alternatives" are different things. I already gave examples of possible alternatives/enhancements to typical English text that would help at least my brain. I won't reinvent that sub-discussion here. > That's much more tree-like: Being tree-like and being easier to read are not necessarily the same thing. > I claim, you are just unfamiliar with Lisp. How long do you believe it's realistic to keep at it if the benefits come slow? For example, if I keep coding in Lisp heavily for 2 years and STILL find it sluggish to read, is it realistic to then give up in your book? > From that we can easily see that... Who is this "we"? I've been reading words and symbols for multiple decades in various contexts (programming, regular books, etc.). I've concluding after these decades that if used in the right spots, symbols GREATLY ENHANCE my ability to parse/grok/absorb written material IRREGARDLESS of the domain or the specific language. For example, one thing I like from C# over VB.net is that C# uses square brackets for array indexes instead of parenthesis like VB does. It improved my head's groking speed of array-related code because parentheses have multiple meanings in VB. (I'm not claiming C# is overall better, this is just one aspect.) Symbols MIXED with words (well) enhance the absorption of words. It's a ying-yang kind of thing. They COMPLIMENT each other. I truly doubt a billion years of using mostly just one OR the other will prove better than using them both. Sorry, I believe Lisp is just plain lacking there. I want my ying-yang MTV. Go play your Wordy Gurdy in Jennifer's juniper garden.