4 ms·
* I use "English Language" as a synonym for "Human Language". However even if you want to be pedantic and interpret all my words in the literal sense, everythin
by quantadev 1y ago
* I use "English Language" as a synonym for "Human Language". However even if you want to be pedantic and interpret all my words in the literal sense, everything I said is still literally true.
* I never said LISP format was widely understood.
- Jtsummers 1y ago> I use "English Language" as a synonym for "Human Language". That was unclear given you kept calling out English, and not natural or human language more broadly in the rest of your comment. But I'll go with it. > all my words in the literal sense, everything I said is still literally true. No, they aren't. You need to make a stronger case than "Because I declared it axiomatically true". + has become part of nearly every language already, what's the value of picking one word (add) from one language (English) to replace it? Or to be more generous to say that every language should substitute for + whatever their language's word is. Now they can't communicate without a translator. Or, they could just use + as has been done for centuries. Why make things harder on ourselves?
- quantadev 1y agoThe point about `(+ 1 2)` v.s. `1+2` is about the fact that the LISP syntax generalizes to all computations, whereas mathematical expressions do not. The beauty of LISP is that one simple syntax solves everything about computation in the axiomatically simplest way possible.
- lproven 1y ago> one simple syntax solves everything about computation in the axiomatically simplest way possible. So what about RPN? What about Forth and Postscript? Just as simple... just as terse... just as efficient... just as general. And, for me, just as unreadable.
- quantadev 1y agoI don't think RPN is as simple as parenthesis. All RPN does is replace the easy to get right parenthesis with difficult to get right newline characters.
- lproven 1y agoReverse Polish notation is every bit as easy, simple and minimal as Lispian prefix notation. They are mirror images of one another... and for most ordinary people, both are equally difficult to read or to use. And I include myself in this. Remember that for a lot of ordinary people, school algebra is almost impossible to follow and is the reason they stop studying maths as soon as they can. And that is simple infix notation.
- quantadev 1y ago> RPN is every bit as easy [as LISP] Riddle me this then: When editing code full of parentheticals, why do devs find it helpful that IDEs can find and highlight the matching opening/closing parenthesis automatically? I mean, based on your logic, parenthesis just don't make things any easier, right? I'll leave the topic of "indentation" completely off the table too, because a single riddle is enough.
- lproven 1y agoI don't know what side you think I am arguing for here, but it's not the one you're guessing.
- quantadev 1y agoYeah, I did't think you ever genuinely believed RPN is easier than LISP.
- lproven 1y agoNo, that is not true. Me personally? I dislike them both. I find them both unreadable. But both are compact and efficient... just really difficult. You are trying to put words in my mouth that are not there. That is very rude. Do not do that, ever. But also, as you have been throughout this thread, you are wrong.