4 ms·

So, a language where, say, blocks are started sometimes with parameters that are delimited with pipes, and sometimes the bodies need a terminating end keyword,

So, a language where, say, blocks are started sometimes with parameters that are delimited with pipes, and sometimes the bodies need a terminating end keyword, other times they need wrapping curly brackets. If you want an explicit lambda, you have to wrap that whole block in curly brackets with a lambda keyword. Classes and functions need an end delimiter but not an explicit start delimiter; if statements however need both a start and end delimiter in "if x then y else z end" Ruby is not semantically sane, it's insane in a way we have all gotten used to. (If you don't know ruby, try to rewrite this for your ALGO language of choice, I picked ruby for its simplicity) S-expressions are about as semantically sane as you can get, it's just most of us have a <5 year head start with the craziness of c-style languages.

catnaroek 13y ago
> So, a language where, say, blocks are started sometimes with parameters that are delimited with pipes, and sometimes the bodies need a terminating end keyword, other times they need wrapping curly brackets. If you want an explicit lambda, you have to wrap that whole block in curly brackets with a lambda keyword. Classes and functions need an end delimiter but not an explicit start delimiter; if statements however need both a start and end delimiter in "if x then y else z end" You are talking about syntax here. > Ruby is not semantically sane, it's insane in a way we have all gotten used to. I hate Ruby even more. It is just as semantically insane as Lisp, and the syntax is worse. > (If you don't know ruby, try to rewrite this for your ALGO language of choice, I picked ruby for its simplicity) Ruby is not simple. It is full of corner cases and redundant constructs. It is hard to make any sort of reasonable guarantee about a Ruby program without resorting to some heavy testing. And no matter what nice property you might have wrestled out of the system, someone else can destroy it anyway by means of monkey patching. > S-expressions are about as semantically sane as you can get S-expressions are syntax with no intrinsic semantics. > it's just most of us have a <5 year head start with the craziness of c-style languages. What about Haskell? (And, in general, languages that have a denotational semantics that makes equational reasoning feasible.) For more details, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954348
- JackMorgan 13y ago
  Is Haskell the semantically sane language you prefer? Fascinating. The best Haskell book I can find is next for me as soon as I finish SICP, any suggestions? I'd love it if the book had homework like SICP.
  - catnaroek 13y ago
    > Is Haskell the semantically sane language you prefer? One of them. > The best Haskell book I can find is next for me as soon as I finish SICP, any suggestions? I liked Learn You a Haskell for Great Good, but that is maybe just because I am a childish person. :-)
    - chilldream 13y ago
      I started Learn You a Haskell a couple days ago on a lark and I'm also loving it. I've also heard a lot of praise for Real World Haskell which I plan to look at next.
      - charlieflowers 13y ago
        Combine them both and you have a fantastic resource. They complement each other very well.
    - millerm 13y ago
      That's a great book! It also inspired "Learn You Some Erlang for Great Good" too. Both are available online for free! http://learnyouahaskell.com http://learnyouahaskell.com http://learnyousomeerlang.com http://learnyousomeerlang.com
    - JackMorgan 13y ago
      What makes it saner than clojure? The type safety?
- ohyes 13y ago
  No syntax has intrinsic semantics. I don't think 'intrinsic semantics' is a meaningful combination of words. Explicitly, in lisp, everything is a stack of instructions arranged in a tree. The instructions are either functions that manipulate the input data, or functions that manipulate the underlying tree of instructions. By naming convention and documentation, we give the various functions semantics. ("With" macros being an example).

catnaroek 13y ago

> So, a language where, say, blocks are started sometimes with parameters that are delimited with pipes, and sometimes the bodies need a terminating end keyword, other times they need wrapping curly brackets. If you want an explicit lambda, you have to wrap that whole block in curly brackets with a lambda keyword. Classes and functions need an end delimiter but not an explicit start delimiter; if statements however need both a start and end delimiter in "if x then y else z end" You are talking about syntax here. > Ruby is not semantically sane, it's insane in a way we have all gotten used to. I hate Ruby even more. It is just as semantically insane as Lisp, and the syntax is worse. > (If you don't know ruby, try to rewrite this for your ALGO language of choice, I picked ruby for its simplicity) Ruby is not simple. It is full of corner cases and redundant constructs. It is hard to make any sort of reasonable guarantee about a Ruby program without resorting to some heavy testing. And no matter what nice property you might have wrestled out of the system, someone else can destroy it anyway by means of monkey patching. > S-expressions are about as semantically sane as you can get S-expressions are syntax with no intrinsic semantics. > it's just most of us have a <5 year head start with the craziness of c-style languages. What about Haskell? (And, in general, languages that have a denotational semantics that makes equational reasoning feasible.) For more details, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954348

JackMorgan 13y ago
Is Haskell the semantically sane language you prefer? Fascinating. The best Haskell book I can find is next for me as soon as I finish SICP, any suggestions? I'd love it if the book had homework like SICP.
- catnaroek 13y ago
  > Is Haskell the semantically sane language you prefer? One of them. > The best Haskell book I can find is next for me as soon as I finish SICP, any suggestions? I liked Learn You a Haskell for Great Good, but that is maybe just because I am a childish person. :-)
  - chilldream 13y ago
    I started Learn You a Haskell a couple days ago on a lark and I'm also loving it. I've also heard a lot of praise for Real World Haskell which I plan to look at next.
    - charlieflowers 13y ago
      Combine them both and you have a fantastic resource. They complement each other very well.
  - millerm 13y ago
    That's a great book! It also inspired "Learn You Some Erlang for Great Good" too. Both are available online for free! http://learnyouahaskell.com http://learnyouahaskell.com http://learnyousomeerlang.com http://learnyousomeerlang.com
  - JackMorgan 13y ago
    What makes it saner than clojure? The type safety?
ohyes 13y ago
No syntax has intrinsic semantics. I don't think 'intrinsic semantics' is a meaningful combination of words. Explicitly, in lisp, everything is a stack of instructions arranged in a tree. The instructions are either functions that manipulate the input data, or functions that manipulate the underlying tree of instructions. By naming convention and documentation, we give the various functions semantics. ("With" macros being an example).