4 ms·

Thanks for shedding some light on technical side. I'm still conflicted about the mental model. We should organize our code into deeply nested tree (with except

Thanks for shedding some light on technical side. I'm still conflicted about the mental model. We should organize our code into deeply nested tree (with exception of cyclical references for recursions), but at top level we use linear and procedural model. In each s-expression there is typically 3 to 5 elements, but at top level there's usually more than dozen definitions. It seems jarring especially when contrasted to elegance of s-expressions. > This is "only" a representation problem What if I want to write new function? I still have to redirect it to specific location in specific file.

sooheon 7y ago
> We should organize our code into deeply nested tree (with exception of cyclical references for recursions), but at top level we use linear and procedural model A filesystem with nested directories and files is a tree. The contents of a file are read in linear fashion, for the same reason you'd read an s-expression character by character--because it's simple and consistent. > In each s-expression there is typically 3 to 5 elements, but at top level there's usually more than dozen definitions. It seems jarring especially when contrasted to elegance of s-expressions There is no law for the "branching factor" of code. It depends on your style, the problem, etc. It seems like a somewhat superficial elegance you're chasing. > What if I want to write new function? I still have to redirect it to specific location in specific file. I'm trying to picture what your ideal alternative is, and it doesn't seem much different. Codebase backed by a graph representation that explicitly encodes dependencies in code loading order? When you add a new sexp you add a new edge and node? That is essentially what we have now, `require`s `refer`s and `declare`s as needed, and the convention that you may depend on everything introduced above your current location in the file.

sooheon 7y ago

> We should organize our code into deeply nested tree (with exception of cyclical references for recursions), but at top level we use linear and procedural model A filesystem with nested directories and files is a tree. The contents of a file are read in linear fashion, for the same reason you'd read an s-expression character by character--because it's simple and consistent. > In each s-expression there is typically 3 to 5 elements, but at top level there's usually more than dozen definitions. It seems jarring especially when contrasted to elegance of s-expressions There is no law for the "branching factor" of code. It depends on your style, the problem, etc. It seems like a somewhat superficial elegance you're chasing. > What if I want to write new function? I still have to redirect it to specific location in specific file. I'm trying to picture what your ideal alternative is, and it doesn't seem much different. Codebase backed by a graph representation that explicitly encodes dependencies in code loading order? When you add a new sexp you add a new edge and node? That is essentially what we have now, `require`s `refer`s and `declare`s as needed, and the convention that you may depend on everything introduced above your current location in the file.