4 ms·
> (1) it's a lisp. This is 2013, compilers can deal with +-*/, I don't need to. I don't understand what you mean here, the lack of infix operators in Lisp? You
by fhd2 13y ago
> (1) it's a lisp. This is 2013, compilers can deal with +-*/, I don't need to.
I don't understand what you mean here, the lack of infix operators in Lisp? You make it sound like prefix notation is inferior. But given how Lispers usually sell it as the best thing since sliced bread, such reactions don't surprise me.
Anyway, you're right. It really seems like C-style syntax has won, and deviating from that is certainly a barrier of adoption. Clojure has been remarkably successful despite this, but I really don't see it becoming the next Java.
- shangaslammi 13y agoThe thing with infix operators is not about being C-like, but rather about mathematical expressions looking like they do in actual mathematics (not to mention that each term potentially adds another level of nesting). At least I've personally found that doing linear algebra, physics calculations or anything with more complex equations in Lisp-like languages is a huge pain.
- tensor 13y agoThis can easily be addressed with a DSL. http://data-sorcery.org/2010/05/14/infix-math/ http://data-sorcery.org/2010/05/14/infix-math/