6 ms·

Whatever trouble Lisp had from its parenthesis heavy prefix syntax will be dwarfed by the comprehensibility issues presented by this: { ⊃ ⍵ ⊇⍨ ↑⍒≢¨ ⍵ /⍨ 2≥

Whatever trouble Lisp had from its parenthesis heavy prefix syntax will be dwarfed by the comprehensibility issues presented by this: { ⊃ ⍵ ⊇⍨ ↑⍒≢¨ ⍵ /⍨ 2≥ (⊂"aeiou") (+/∊⍨)¨ ⍵ } io:read "dict.txt" I get that there's a very coherent intellectual framework to this, and it's possible to get used to it... but most people don't do that. This is particularly true when the alternative is Excel, which was widely accessible before it was taught in schools, and is now taught in schools too. (This language comes from a history where it used to be necessary to by special typewriter balls to print the text. https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102696478 https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10269647... )

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cardanome 3y ago
APL notation makes more sense once you get that it was developed as an better notation for expressing math. [1] Classical Math notation is full of weird Greek symbols and absolutely incomprehensible without any training. APL is way more regular and easier to grok as well as to type on computers. With it's small set of special symbols, regular syntax and human-friendly infix notation APL is designed be very easy to learn. It looks utterly alien to programmers that are used to the C-style syntax based languages, yes. but your JS or C# code looks as alien if not more alien to an non-programmer as does APL to you. I am not convinced that APL is harder to learn that JS for non-programmers. I think existing programmer struggle way more with learning APL because it requires them to unlearn certain ideas. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/358896.358899 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/358896.358899
- int_19h 3y ago
  Non-programmers can understand IF A = 42 THEN PRINT "WTF" just fine.
  - GrumpySloth 3y ago
    Only if they already speak English. When I first learned C, I didn’t know English well enough to understand what “if” or “else” meant. I learned these words in the context of programming first, and natural language second. This experience is probably the same for most of the world’s programmers. When I was learning programming back then, those keywords could just as well have been single letters. It wouldn’t have made a difference. Also, I went up to my printer and there is no “WTF” there. Surely, this program doesn’t work! More seriously, this just illustrates that convention and idioms are much more powerful carriers of meaning than dictionary words. Array languages rely heavily on conventions/idioms.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      If you don't speak the language, then of course it won't make sense to you, but what relevance does it have to the conversation? As for expecting "print" to go to printer, I doubt that's the default expectation of anyone under the age of ~35 at this point. Array languages rely heavily on idiosyncratic conventions/idioms that are utterly alien to all outsiders. Hence why they don't see uptake, and that is not going to change until their proponents are going to take this seriously. This all reminds me how Lisp adherents keep saying that syntax doesn't matter, except, looking at the actual adoption of Lisp, it evidently does. You are not going to convince everyone else to learn to "hold it the right way".
      - GrumpySloth 3y ago
        > If you don't speak the language, then of course it won't make sense to you, but what relevance does it have to the conversation? It demonstrates that your criticism of the syntax of array languages boils down to “it’s different than the things I already know” and that not using words in a programming language isn’t a meaningful barrier to most people, given that most programmers in the world overcame this obstacle with no sweat. There is a meaningful criticism to be had in the area of syntax, but this is not it IMO. One valid criticism I know of is that most array languages have a context-sensitive syntax: you need to maintain a symbol table in your head to know how to parenthesise a line of code. Fortunately, BQN fixes this issue by using a context-free grammar. Lisp is defined by much more than syntax. I certainly see many flaws in it (starting with the cons cell), which are total deal-breakers for me and have nothing to do with syntax. I think your view that syntax is the biggest obstacle to Lisp’s popularity isn’t as evident as you claim. There are too many other, IMO bigger obstacles.
- mschaef 3y ago
  > APL notation makes more sense once you get...... APL is way more regular... With it's small set of special symbols, regular syntax and human-friendly infix notation APL is designed be very easy to learn....It looks utterly alien to programmers that are used to the C-style syntax based languages, yes. As you might guess from my original post, I'm a Lisp apologist. I like the syntax and I can make an argument for Lisp [1] that sounds a lot like the argument you make here for APL. From what you say and from what I've read, I suspect APL is another language like Lisp (and Smalltalk, Forth, and Tcl). These are all languages derive a great deal of elegance and coherence from a pure approach to syntax and design, and all are seductive in their way to people that have taken on the effort to learn how they work. The problem is that this doesn't matter enough to overcome the incumbency bias in favor of more traditional languages. > but your JS or C# code looks as alien if not more alien to an non-programmer as does APL to you. It would be convenient for APL if this were true, but the reality is that it's not. I learned Logo and Basic when I was eight. My kids learned JS/Python around the same age. This is a common experience. It's just not that hard to learn basic imperative programming in an infix language. 1] https://mschaef.com/lisp-syntax https://mschaef.com/lisp-syntax

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cardanome 3y ago

APL notation makes more sense once you get that it was developed as an better notation for expressing math. [1] Classical Math notation is full of weird Greek symbols and absolutely incomprehensible without any training. APL is way more regular and easier to grok as well as to type on computers. With it's small set of special symbols, regular syntax and human-friendly infix notation APL is designed be very easy to learn. It looks utterly alien to programmers that are used to the C-style syntax based languages, yes. but your JS or C# code looks as alien if not more alien to an non-programmer as does APL to you. I am not convinced that APL is harder to learn that JS for non-programmers. I think existing programmer struggle way more with learning APL because it requires them to unlearn certain ideas. [1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/358896.358899 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/358896.358899

int_19h 3y ago
Non-programmers can understand IF A = 42 THEN PRINT "WTF" just fine.
- GrumpySloth 3y ago
  Only if they already speak English. When I first learned C, I didn’t know English well enough to understand what “if” or “else” meant. I learned these words in the context of programming first, and natural language second. This experience is probably the same for most of the world’s programmers. When I was learning programming back then, those keywords could just as well have been single letters. It wouldn’t have made a difference. Also, I went up to my printer and there is no “WTF” there. Surely, this program doesn’t work! More seriously, this just illustrates that convention and idioms are much more powerful carriers of meaning than dictionary words. Array languages rely heavily on conventions/idioms.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    If you don't speak the language, then of course it won't make sense to you, but what relevance does it have to the conversation? As for expecting "print" to go to printer, I doubt that's the default expectation of anyone under the age of ~35 at this point. Array languages rely heavily on idiosyncratic conventions/idioms that are utterly alien to all outsiders. Hence why they don't see uptake, and that is not going to change until their proponents are going to take this seriously. This all reminds me how Lisp adherents keep saying that syntax doesn't matter, except, looking at the actual adoption of Lisp, it evidently does. You are not going to convince everyone else to learn to "hold it the right way".
    - GrumpySloth 3y ago
      > If you don't speak the language, then of course it won't make sense to you, but what relevance does it have to the conversation? It demonstrates that your criticism of the syntax of array languages boils down to “it’s different than the things I already know” and that not using words in a programming language isn’t a meaningful barrier to most people, given that most programmers in the world overcame this obstacle with no sweat. There is a meaningful criticism to be had in the area of syntax, but this is not it IMO. One valid criticism I know of is that most array languages have a context-sensitive syntax: you need to maintain a symbol table in your head to know how to parenthesise a line of code. Fortunately, BQN fixes this issue by using a context-free grammar. Lisp is defined by much more than syntax. I certainly see many flaws in it (starting with the cons cell), which are total deal-breakers for me and have nothing to do with syntax. I think your view that syntax is the biggest obstacle to Lisp’s popularity isn’t as evident as you claim. There are too many other, IMO bigger obstacles.
mschaef 3y ago
> APL notation makes more sense once you get...... APL is way more regular... With it's small set of special symbols, regular syntax and human-friendly infix notation APL is designed be very easy to learn....It looks utterly alien to programmers that are used to the C-style syntax based languages, yes. As you might guess from my original post, I'm a Lisp apologist. I like the syntax and I can make an argument for Lisp [1] that sounds a lot like the argument you make here for APL. From what you say and from what I've read, I suspect APL is another language like Lisp (and Smalltalk, Forth, and Tcl). These are all languages derive a great deal of elegance and coherence from a pure approach to syntax and design, and all are seductive in their way to people that have taken on the effort to learn how they work. The problem is that this doesn't matter enough to overcome the incumbency bias in favor of more traditional languages. > but your JS or C# code looks as alien if not more alien to an non-programmer as does APL to you. It would be convenient for APL if this were true, but the reality is that it's not. I learned Logo and Basic when I was eight. My kids learned JS/Python around the same age. This is a common experience. It's just not that hard to learn basic imperative programming in an infix language. 1] https://mschaef.com/lisp-syntax https://mschaef.com/lisp-syntax