4 ms·

I don’t find it appealing when everything looks the same irrespective of purpose and context.

by layer8 2mo ago

eru 2mo ago
Seems like a non-sequitur.
- layer8 2mo ago
  How so? Homoiconicity means that everything uses the same form of representation, and I’m familiar with how these things look in Lisp.
  - eru 2mo ago
    Homoiconicity doesn't mean everything has to _look_ the same. If the term has any meaning, it's about how program source code can be represented and manipulated easily by the user. (And I say 'can' deliberately, because even Lisps still allow you to treat source code as a big flat string, if you want to.) I don't think homoiconicity is all that much of a useful concept. It's very hard to pin down. Eg C can represent its own source code, too, if a bit clunkily. And Lisps generally don't execute by walking over s-expressions: their internal representation of their own logic typically uses more sophisticated structures (and adding native code compilers to the mix complicates matters further).
jibal 2mo ago
Does i + 1 look the same as "i + 1"? The first is an expression, the second is a string. In LISP, it's similarly (+ i 1) vs '(+ i 1). These sorts of shallow complaints can be made of any feature than one is not familiar with, hasn't used, and doesn't know or understand the benefits of. In any case, no one is forcing people to use this language or take advantage of this feature. P.S. The "response" actually ignores all points made, attacks strawmen, moves the goalposts, and is intellectually dishonest (the original comment was clearly a complaint, and besides it wouldn't matter if some other word like "criticism" or "dissatisfaction" were substituted--my point remains). Again, no one is forcing anyone.
- layer8 2mo ago
  To answer your question, yes it does look pretty much the same in the Lisp version, less so in the string version. Also I didn’t complain; I expressed the opinion that I don’t agree that homoiconicity increases the appeal of a programming language, because the drawbacks outweigh the possible benefits for me. I spent some time programming in Lisp and am familiar with how homoiconicity works there. The point is that these things are subjective, and there will never be a programming language that everyone likes the best.
  - soegaard 2mo ago
    You will like: https://parentheticallyspeaking.org/articles/bicameral-not-homoiconic/ https://parentheticallyspeaking.org/articles/bicameral-not-h...
BoingBoomTschak 2mo ago
You can read the words, you know? Together with proper indentation that almost makes it look like Python, there's no way you can get lost in Lisp.

I don’t find it appealing when everything looks the same irrespective of purpose and context.

by layer8 2mo ago

I don’t find it appealing when everything looks the same irrespective of purpose and context.

eru 2mo ago

Seems like a non-sequitur.

layer8 2mo ago
How so? Homoiconicity means that everything uses the same form of representation, and I’m familiar with how these things look in Lisp.
- eru 2mo ago
  Homoiconicity doesn't mean everything has to _look_ the same. If the term has any meaning, it's about how program source code can be represented and manipulated easily by the user. (And I say 'can' deliberately, because even Lisps still allow you to treat source code as a big flat string, if you want to.) I don't think homoiconicity is all that much of a useful concept. It's very hard to pin down. Eg C can represent its own source code, too, if a bit clunkily. And Lisps generally don't execute by walking over s-expressions: their internal representation of their own logic typically uses more sophisticated structures (and adding native code compilers to the mix complicates matters further).

jibal 2mo ago

Does i + 1 look the same as "i + 1"? The first is an expression, the second is a string. In LISP, it's similarly (+ i 1) vs '(+ i 1). These sorts of shallow complaints can be made of any feature than one is not familiar with, hasn't used, and doesn't know or understand the benefits of. In any case, no one is forcing people to use this language or take advantage of this feature. P.S. The "response" actually ignores all points made, attacks strawmen, moves the goalposts, and is intellectually dishonest (the original comment was clearly a complaint, and besides it wouldn't matter if some other word like "criticism" or "dissatisfaction" were substituted--my point remains). Again, no one is forcing anyone.

layer8 2mo ago
To answer your question, yes it does look pretty much the same in the Lisp version, less so in the string version. Also I didn’t complain; I expressed the opinion that I don’t agree that homoiconicity increases the appeal of a programming language, because the drawbacks outweigh the possible benefits for me. I spent some time programming in Lisp and am familiar with how homoiconicity works there. The point is that these things are subjective, and there will never be a programming language that everyone likes the best.
- soegaard 2mo ago
  You will like: https://parentheticallyspeaking.org/articles/bicameral-not-homoiconic/ https://parentheticallyspeaking.org/articles/bicameral-not-h...

BoingBoomTschak 2mo ago

You can read the words, you know? Together with proper indentation that almost makes it look like Python, there's no way you can get lost in Lisp.