4 ms·

Well, although it is sometimes described as a lisp, it’s not Lisp. It has a lot of syntax. Personally, I like the syntax, but some people prefer more minimalist

Well, although it is sometimes described as a lisp, it’s not Lisp. It has a lot of syntax. Personally, I like the syntax, but some people prefer more minimalist languages.

pjmlp 5y ago
It is a lisp in the same linage as Dylan. No matter how long we try, people are scared when they see parentheses on the wrong place (according to their beliefs).
- dgb23 5y ago
  For me it is less about being scared, more about s-expressions being more friction-less in enough circumstances for it to matter. One thing that - to me - seems like a missed opportunity is to use Lisp notation in mathematics. There are many fields such as algebra, logic and so on that lend itself to being expressed in terms of a Lisp. It isn't just about avoiding ambiguity, but also about having a uniform way to mechanically transform expressions.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Yeah, but in mathematics we end up in the classical Lisp vs ML discussion, there is a known paper about both styles actually, arguing for ML, as it was written from someone on the ML side of the fence. In any case, maybe "Computer Algebra with LISP and REDUCE: An Introduction to Computer-aided Pure Mathematics" is something to dive into, https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Algebra-LISP-REDUCE-Computer-aided/dp/0792314417/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Computer+Algebra+with+LISP+and+REDUCE&qid=1633424049&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Algebra-LISP-REDUCE-Computer...
    - dgb23 5y ago
      Thank you for sharing! You may have recognized that I'm not terribly aware of the history behind this discussion and its arguments. It's more of an intuition built from using and exploring Scheme and Clojure. My intuition is that if you have a uniform, flexible notation, then you get to use the same set of mechanical transformation tools for any language, which leads to more cross pollination and common solutions. But I could see how the meaning of that notation can get overloaded if you jump from context to context, say declarative versus algorithmic.
dgb23 5y ago
It depends how you look at it and how strictly you define "Lisp". Which parts of that definition really matter to you. https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/ast/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/ast/
teruakohatu 5y ago
> it’s not Lisp At the very least it includes a lisp: $ julia --lisp

Well, although it is sometimes described as a lisp, it’s not Lisp. It has a lot of syntax. Personally, I like the syntax, but some people prefer more minimalist languages.

pjmlp 5y ago

It is a lisp in the same linage as Dylan. No matter how long we try, people are scared when they see parentheses on the wrong place (according to their beliefs).

dgb23 5y ago
For me it is less about being scared, more about s-expressions being more friction-less in enough circumstances for it to matter. One thing that - to me - seems like a missed opportunity is to use Lisp notation in mathematics. There are many fields such as algebra, logic and so on that lend itself to being expressed in terms of a Lisp. It isn't just about avoiding ambiguity, but also about having a uniform way to mechanically transform expressions.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Yeah, but in mathematics we end up in the classical Lisp vs ML discussion, there is a known paper about both styles actually, arguing for ML, as it was written from someone on the ML side of the fence. In any case, maybe "Computer Algebra with LISP and REDUCE: An Introduction to Computer-aided Pure Mathematics" is something to dive into, https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Algebra-LISP-REDUCE-Computer-aided/dp/0792314417/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Computer+Algebra+with+LISP+and+REDUCE&qid=1633424049&sr=8-2 https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Algebra-LISP-REDUCE-Computer...
  - dgb23 5y ago
    Thank you for sharing! You may have recognized that I'm not terribly aware of the history behind this discussion and its arguments. It's more of an intuition built from using and exploring Scheme and Clojure. My intuition is that if you have a uniform, flexible notation, then you get to use the same set of mechanical transformation tools for any language, which leads to more cross pollination and common solutions. But I could see how the meaning of that notation can get overloaded if you jump from context to context, say declarative versus algorithmic.

dgb23 5y ago

It depends how you look at it and how strictly you define "Lisp". Which parts of that definition really matter to you. https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/ast/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/ast/

teruakohatu 5y ago

> it’s not Lisp At the very least it includes a lisp: $ julia --lisp