3 ms·
> Are there any that come close to the usage of lisps with proper s-expressions? If you consider Julia a Lisp, which I would argue you should, it may be the mo
by samatman 3y ago
> Are there any that come close to the usage of lisps with proper s-expressions?
If you consider Julia a Lisp, which I would argue you should, it may be the most widely-used Lisp currently. The only way you'll see an s-expression is is to call Meta.show_sexpr.
If you consider Dylan a Lisp, you should consider Julia a Lisp as well. If you don't consider Dylan a Lisp, I have to conclude that you consider the s-expressions to be part of the definition of a Lisp. Which isn't an unreasonable taxonomy, but isn't the one I use.
- diggan 3y ago> If you consider Julia a Lisp Maybe, but would you consider Julia a Lisp without parentheses, which was the context here? Because after looking at their documentation (https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/methods/ https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/methods/ for example), it seems to have as many parens as any other lisp, just postfix notation rather than prefix notation, `f(Float32(2.0), 3.0)` vs `(f (Float32 2.0), 3.0)`. Arguing about what makes or doesn't a lisp is a conversation I don't think will lead to any useful results, I feel like that's ongoing since the 60s or something. Out of my league :)
- samatman 3y agoGiven you said > lisps with proper s-expressions It's off-putting for you to fly in and pretend to be surprised that Julia uses parentheses in a way consistent with other languages which are syntactically Algolic. Apologies for expecting a serious conversation, didn't know who I was dealing with.
- diggan 3y agoThe root context of the conversation you injected yourself into, was about lisps without parens. It's OK to misunderstand, but please don't blame me for your own misunderstanding. Have a nice day!