4 ms·

> The lisp source code encodes more information, and what is added is highly relevant to the process of reading it Lisp isn't that easy when you don't have su

> The lisp source code encodes more information, and what is added is highly relevant to the process of reading it Lisp isn't that easy when you don't have supporting tools, mainly a coding editor that auto-indents, re-indents, and shows matching parenthesis. I think you're being a bit over-optimistic there. Forth, OTOH, has been used with dumb terminals over serial lines. Old Forth systems even often featured an integrated code editor for this purpose, on systems with very limited memory. This was possible because Forth doesn't need a complex editor to be comfortable... When you don't neglect factoring, naming, etc. > The human mind is a computer Right. Can your human mind compute 358729358 x 5648759845 in less than 10 ns ? False premise, invalid conclusion. Anyway, you're so right, you're so right. Have a nice day with Lisp.

James_K 2y ago
> False premise So "the human mind is a computer" is a false premise, but "a computer must be able to compute 358729358 x 5648759845 in less than 10 ns" isn't? Do you know what a computer is? The human mind has a very different architecture than the Turing machines you are used to, so its performance characteristics are also different. > invalid conclusion My conclusion doesn't require the premise that the human mind is a computer. That is just an analogy to help you to understand my actual argument, which is as follows: there are certain things that happen in the brain which take time and energy (scientifically proven), reading Forth requires you to do more of those things than reading lisp (trivially true). Therefore it is harder, if hardness is a metric of how much effort (time and engery) something takes. > mainly a coding editor that auto-indents, re-indents, and shows matching parenthesis. I think you're being a bit over-optimistic there. Even Nano does this. Far from being optimistic, I struggle to think of a situation where you wouldn't have this. Unless your computer is hooked up to a teletype printer, you will have these features. People have edited lisp code on deep space missions and had these features. How? Because you can write the forms in an editor and then send them over the wire afterwards. This is a technical problem that was solved before it even existed, and it is just a sad coincidence that many people decide to edit and run code through a dumb terminal connected to a REPL instead of in an actual editor connected to that same REPL session. > Forth doesn't need a complex editor to be comfortable Neither does lisp. Matching brackets and auto-indenting lisp code is so simple its braindead. It would be the simplest feature of any editor that supports it. Quite frankly, this is a stupid argument anyway. Even if text editors as "advanced" and "complex" as GNU Nano were a total rarity, I would rather code in a language that's easier for my editor installed on my computer than one which caters to someone else doing everything on an embedded device which only connects to a physical printer. That's like saying we should all use Fortran because it works much better on punch-cards.
kazinator 2y ago
> don't have supporting tools, mainly a coding editor that auto-indents, re-indents, and shows matching parenthesis But such an editor is possible for Lisp, without it having a deep understanding of Lisp at all. For instance :set lisp mode is quite usable in classic Vi. Whitespace, like indentation, is used in Forth programming. Do commonly available editors support this?

James_K 2y ago

> False premise So "the human mind is a computer" is a false premise, but "a computer must be able to compute 358729358 x 5648759845 in less than 10 ns" isn't? Do you know what a computer is? The human mind has a very different architecture than the Turing machines you are used to, so its performance characteristics are also different. > invalid conclusion My conclusion doesn't require the premise that the human mind is a computer. That is just an analogy to help you to understand my actual argument, which is as follows: there are certain things that happen in the brain which take time and energy (scientifically proven), reading Forth requires you to do more of those things than reading lisp (trivially true). Therefore it is harder, if hardness is a metric of how much effort (time and engery) something takes. > mainly a coding editor that auto-indents, re-indents, and shows matching parenthesis. I think you're being a bit over-optimistic there. Even Nano does this. Far from being optimistic, I struggle to think of a situation where you wouldn't have this. Unless your computer is hooked up to a teletype printer, you will have these features. People have edited lisp code on deep space missions and had these features. How? Because you can write the forms in an editor and then send them over the wire afterwards. This is a technical problem that was solved before it even existed, and it is just a sad coincidence that many people decide to edit and run code through a dumb terminal connected to a REPL instead of in an actual editor connected to that same REPL session. > Forth doesn't need a complex editor to be comfortable Neither does lisp. Matching brackets and auto-indenting lisp code is so simple its braindead. It would be the simplest feature of any editor that supports it. Quite frankly, this is a stupid argument anyway. Even if text editors as "advanced" and "complex" as GNU Nano were a total rarity, I would rather code in a language that's easier for my editor installed on my computer than one which caters to someone else doing everything on an embedded device which only connects to a physical printer. That's like saying we should all use Fortran because it works much better on punch-cards.

kazinator 2y ago

> don't have supporting tools, mainly a coding editor that auto-indents, re-indents, and shows matching parenthesis But such an editor is possible for Lisp, without it having a deep understanding of Lisp at all. For instance :set lisp mode is quite usable in classic Vi. Whitespace, like indentation, is used in Forth programming. Do commonly available editors support this?