3 ms·

Considering the "readable" example: (define (factorial n) (if (<= n 1) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1))))) define factorial(n) if {n <= 1}

by wes-exp 14y ago

Considering the "readable" example: (define (factorial n) (if (<= n 1) 1 (* n (factorial (- n 1))))) define factorial(n) if {n <= 1} 1 {n * factorial{n - 1}} The first one looks more pleasant to me. The second one looks broken and disorganized. My brain can't parse it as easily without the visual cues provided by the parens. Of course, it looks better to me because I'm used to lisp. When I first saw lisp I thought the syntax was nuts. Point being - what looks "good" can simply be a matter of what you're used to.

zem 14y ago
pseudo-ml factorial n = case | n <= 1 -> 1 | else -> n * factorial (n - 1) i can see what's going on at a glance - the syntax and layout of the code are a positive help to understanding it.
- saurik 14y ago
  You changed the structure, though, to use something much closer to a cond instead of an if. Also, there are variants that require fewer ()s for this. clisp: (defun factorial (n) (cond ((<= n 1) 1) (T (* n (factorial (- n 1)))))) Clojure (which I believe is similar to Ark with respect to not using extra parentheses around cond clauses, but I don't have Ark setup to verify that that's actually the case and then to test my demonstration with, so I'm going to do it with Clojure, despite the "weird" [] syntax, as it is orthogonal to the demonstration): (defn factorial [n] (cond (<= n 1) 1 :else (* n (factorial (dec n)))))
  - zem 14y ago
    fair point (i was actually planning on adding a lisp cond by way of contrast, and then forgot). my contention is that the ml cond looks a lot less cluttered than the lisp one, and is therefore more pleasant to read. the clojure one is nicer since it lacks the visual clutter of the per-case enclosing parens, but it feels slightly wrong from a lisp perspective since i'm now replacing [(a, b), (c, d)] with [a, b, c, d] which has changed the innate structure of the expression. i actually like the racket convention of using square brackets to distinguish this the best of all the lispy options: (defn factorial [n] (cond [(<= n 1) 1] [:else (* n (factorial (dec n)))]))
    - gcr 14y ago
      For the record, that isn't valid racket code. This is: (define (factorial n) (cond [(<= n 1) 1] [else (* n (factorial (sub1 n)))]))

by wes-exp 14y ago

zem 14y ago

pseudo-ml factorial n = case | n <= 1 -> 1 | else -> n * factorial (n - 1) i can see what's going on at a glance - the syntax and layout of the code are a positive help to understanding it.

saurik 14y ago
You changed the structure, though, to use something much closer to a cond instead of an if. Also, there are variants that require fewer ()s for this. clisp: (defun factorial (n) (cond ((<= n 1) 1) (T (* n (factorial (- n 1)))))) Clojure (which I believe is similar to Ark with respect to not using extra parentheses around cond clauses, but I don't have Ark setup to verify that that's actually the case and then to test my demonstration with, so I'm going to do it with Clojure, despite the "weird" [] syntax, as it is orthogonal to the demonstration): (defn factorial [n] (cond (<= n 1) 1 :else (* n (factorial (dec n)))))
- zem 14y ago
  fair point (i was actually planning on adding a lisp cond by way of contrast, and then forgot). my contention is that the ml cond looks a lot less cluttered than the lisp one, and is therefore more pleasant to read. the clojure one is nicer since it lacks the visual clutter of the per-case enclosing parens, but it feels slightly wrong from a lisp perspective since i'm now replacing [(a, b), (c, d)] with [a, b, c, d] which has changed the innate structure of the expression. i actually like the racket convention of using square brackets to distinguish this the best of all the lispy options: (defn factorial [n] (cond [(<= n 1) 1] [:else (* n (factorial (dec n)))]))
  - gcr 14y ago
    For the record, that isn't valid racket code. This is: (define (factorial n) (cond [(<= n 1) 1] [else (* n (factorial (sub1 n)))]))