3 ms·

Why not Lisp? I never understood why would people need any other programming/query/markup language syntaxes in the first place. The only part of Lisp that seems

Why not Lisp? I never understood why would people need any other programming/query/markup language syntaxes in the first place. The only part of Lisp that seems ugly are the ending stacks of closing parentheses at the ends of big code blocks.

tmtvl 4y ago
If you don't like long sequences of closing parentheses, you could try Lisp Butt Mode for Emacs: https://gitlab.com/marcowahl/lisp-butt-mode https://gitlab.com/marcowahl/lisp-butt-mode
- TuringTest 4y ago
  Or you could use the Readable Lisp S-Expressions [1] project from Wheeler's and Gloria's to use Lisp with Python-like syntax. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9533139/what-would-clojure-lose-by-switching-away-from-leading-parenthesis-like-dylan-j/17524527#17524527 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9533139/what-would-cloju...
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    Well, if you are going to mention alternative syntaxes, another possibility may be Wisp: https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/ https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/
    - TuringTest 4y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know that syntax. What are the advantages of Wisp over sweet-expressions?
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> Why not Lisp? If you want to persuade people to use Lisp, "why not?" isn't very persuasive. If you don't have a concrete reason why, and I'm not already using it, I'm going to continue not using it. > I never understood why would people need any other programming/query/markup language syntaxes in the first place. Because Lisp syntax doesn't fit the way everyone's brain works. If it fits yours, that's great. If it doesn't fit mine, well, you may not understand why I want something else, but it's crystal clear to me. Going broader than you and me, it's my perception that most people find Lisp syntax non-intuitive. That's why people need other programming language syntaxes. But, if you're going to extend it to markup languages, I will give you this. Once you have seen S-expressions, XML looks disgusting.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tmtvl 4y ago

If you don't like long sequences of closing parentheses, you could try Lisp Butt Mode for Emacs: https://gitlab.com/marcowahl/lisp-butt-mode https://gitlab.com/marcowahl/lisp-butt-mode

TuringTest 4y ago
Or you could use the Readable Lisp S-Expressions [1] project from Wheeler's and Gloria's to use Lisp with Python-like syntax. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9533139/what-would-clojure-lose-by-switching-away-from-leading-parenthesis-like-dylan-j/17524527#17524527 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9533139/what-would-cloju...
- tmtvl 4y ago
  Well, if you are going to mention alternative syntaxes, another possibility may be Wisp: https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/ https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-119/
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know that syntax. What are the advantages of Wisp over sweet-expressions?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> Why not Lisp? If you want to persuade people to use Lisp, "why not?" isn't very persuasive. If you don't have a concrete reason why, and I'm not already using it, I'm going to continue not using it. > I never understood why would people need any other programming/query/markup language syntaxes in the first place. Because Lisp syntax doesn't fit the way everyone's brain works. If it fits yours, that's great. If it doesn't fit mine, well, you may not understand why I want something else, but it's crystal clear to me. Going broader than you and me, it's my perception that most people find Lisp syntax non-intuitive. That's why people need other programming language syntaxes. But, if you're going to extend it to markup languages, I will give you this. Once you have seen S-expressions, XML looks disgusting.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]