5 ms·

Just because Lisp looks foreign doesn't mean that it's harder. The syntax is different, but it is also very simple. If this were untrue, Scheme wouldn't have su

by wes-exp 12y ago

Just because Lisp looks foreign doesn't mean that it's harder. The syntax is different, but it is also very simple. If this were untrue, Scheme wouldn't have survived as a teaching language all these years.

sejje 12y ago
> The biggest secret to Lisp is that it is actually the simplest programming language ever created—and that, coupled with its expressiveness and elegance, is why it is favored exclusively by the best programmers in the world. But is it?
- nohaxplz 12y ago
  Sounds like you just got told you're not one of the best programmers in the world and are still in shock about it.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    Sounds to me like the GP is in shock about such an over-the-top claim. And it sounds like you're trying to pretend to read his/her statement for something other than what it is.
  - nightski 12y ago
    Simple syntax does not a simple programming language make.
    - gre 12y ago
      Simple syntax "Hello world!" ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
  - sejje 12y ago
    I'm not one of the best programmers in the world, no shock there. I'm learning and enjoying clojure, though!
bsilvereagle 12y ago
At first I thought the Dr. Scheme (now Dr. Racket) program was crazy to choose a Lisp like language. Then as I learned more languages I realized how much easier it is to think about programming since I started out with Dr. Scheme. How To Design Programs for those interested in picking up Scheme: http://htdp.org/ http://htdp.org/
mkautzm 12y ago
It's less about it being 'foreign' and more about it being totally unparsable. The thing with imperative programming is that you don't really need to know the language to at least get an idea of what's happening. Lisp is so dense that while you can pack an unbelievable amount of programming into a small chunk, approaching it as a beginner is daunting. There isn't a really good way to 'build' on an algorithm and learning it is significantly harder than learning C# or Java or even better yet, Python. It's like saying, 'Linux is easy to learn! You can do so much in so few characters! It's so powerful! And look, robust manual pages for all!' Yeah, that's true, but handing a user some pipes and greps isn't going to explain what the hell they actually do or better yet, how to leverage that into something useful. It's just going to look like greek to anyone who sees it and a huge effort has to be made to get to the point where you can even begin to understand what's happening. Imperative programming doesn't ask you of much. 'Here is a class. Here is the main method. Write some stuff in here. Here are some basic methods in the default libraries and their expected inputs. It's going to execute line by line. Go nuts.' And that's really the difference here. Lisp asks a lot of the user up front. Python doesn't. C# doesn't. Fuck, Python is so loose that you don't even really need to know what any of the structure is to start writing something that kicks back some output. Yeah, as a group that understands Lisp and Scheme and Haskell and F#, it's really easy to say, 'Lisp isn't THAT hard', but that's bullshit. Lisp IS that hard. Lisp is a very difficult language to pickup when you are starting at square one and it's only marginally easier if your background is purely imperative languages. Misrepresenting that is a bold-faced lie.
- catern 12y ago
  I don't find your argument to be very compelling. Let me guess: you learned imperative programming first, you're most familiar with it, and you only have limited experience with Lisp, if any? The fact that you find imperative programming easy (because you know it well) and Lisp and functional programming to be hard, is not very informative about which of imperative or Lispy or functional programming is easiest to learn.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    The only thing that was hard with imperative programming that I can remember was "=". That was absurd, to put it simply. "x = x + 1"? As someone who has seen these symbols in math class and think they know what they mean that notation kind of suck.
gre 12y ago
The DSL for string formatting certainly doesn't look simple. (format t "~{~@(~A~)~^ ~}, because ~{~A~^ ~} is easier!" llthw (cddr llthw))
- gaigepr 12y ago
  I am only recently a lisp user but honestly, how is the format function far from: printf("something %s then %d finally %f!", "asd", 1, 1.2) As mentioned, there is a loop built into format. Since lisp also has a (list) function eg: (list 'a 'b 'c 1) I still don't see an argument beyond familiarity with the C style printf syntax for why format is bad/unreadable.
  - wglb 12y ago
    There is a loop embedded in the lisp version.
- mcosta 12y ago
  I do not understant it, but with changing ~ with % I can imagine what it does.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  It's complex because it's powerful. ~A is the most common directive; it simply prints an object. '~{...~}' (braces) iterates over a list, applying the directives within it to the list elements. Within that construct, '~^' exits if the last element of the list has been consumed; it's used here to keep the separating space from being printed after the last element. '~@(...~)' (parens) capitalizes words in the output of the directives it contains, downcasing the non-initial character of each word. So there's a lot more power here than in 'printf' control strings. If you find the more exotic notation unintuitive -- and you certainly wouldn't be alone -- you don't have to use it.
  - gre 12y ago
    It's just disingenuous to say that LISP has extremely simple syntax and then show the DSL for format, which is anything but LISPy or simple.
rtpg 12y ago
Simplicity of syntax does not translate to ease of use. Or else we'd all be programming in one-instruction Turing Tarpit.
- kazinator 12y ago
  That's right; Lisp's syntax is not only simple; it is simple while retaining the power to combines together and express any syntax tree. If you put on special Lisp goggles, you can see S-expressions inside the syntaxes of other languages.

by wes-exp 12y ago

sejje 12y ago

> The biggest secret to Lisp is that it is actually the simplest programming language ever created—and that, coupled with its expressiveness and elegance, is why it is favored exclusively by the best programmers in the world. But is it?

nohaxplz 12y ago
Sounds like you just got told you're not one of the best programmers in the world and are still in shock about it.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Sounds to me like the GP is in shock about such an over-the-top claim. And it sounds like you're trying to pretend to read his/her statement for something other than what it is.
- nightski 12y ago
  Simple syntax does not a simple programming language make.
  - gre 12y ago
    Simple syntax "Hello world!" ++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
- sejje 12y ago
  I'm not one of the best programmers in the world, no shock there. I'm learning and enjoying clojure, though!

bsilvereagle 12y ago

At first I thought the Dr. Scheme (now Dr. Racket) program was crazy to choose a Lisp like language. Then as I learned more languages I realized how much easier it is to think about programming since I started out with Dr. Scheme. How To Design Programs for those interested in picking up Scheme: http://htdp.org/ http://htdp.org/

mkautzm 12y ago

It's less about it being 'foreign' and more about it being totally unparsable. The thing with imperative programming is that you don't really need to know the language to at least get an idea of what's happening. Lisp is so dense that while you can pack an unbelievable amount of programming into a small chunk, approaching it as a beginner is daunting. There isn't a really good way to 'build' on an algorithm and learning it is significantly harder than learning C# or Java or even better yet, Python. It's like saying, 'Linux is easy to learn! You can do so much in so few characters! It's so powerful! And look, robust manual pages for all!' Yeah, that's true, but handing a user some pipes and greps isn't going to explain what the hell they actually do or better yet, how to leverage that into something useful. It's just going to look like greek to anyone who sees it and a huge effort has to be made to get to the point where you can even begin to understand what's happening. Imperative programming doesn't ask you of much. 'Here is a class. Here is the main method. Write some stuff in here. Here are some basic methods in the default libraries and their expected inputs. It's going to execute line by line. Go nuts.' And that's really the difference here. Lisp asks a lot of the user up front. Python doesn't. C# doesn't. Fuck, Python is so loose that you don't even really need to know what any of the structure is to start writing something that kicks back some output. Yeah, as a group that understands Lisp and Scheme and Haskell and F#, it's really easy to say, 'Lisp isn't THAT hard', but that's bullshit. Lisp IS that hard. Lisp is a very difficult language to pickup when you are starting at square one and it's only marginally easier if your background is purely imperative languages. Misrepresenting that is a bold-faced lie.

catern 12y ago
I don't find your argument to be very compelling. Let me guess: you learned imperative programming first, you're most familiar with it, and you only have limited experience with Lisp, if any? The fact that you find imperative programming easy (because you know it well) and Lisp and functional programming to be hard, is not very informative about which of imperative or Lispy or functional programming is easiest to learn.
- tormeh 12y ago
  The only thing that was hard with imperative programming that I can remember was "=". That was absurd, to put it simply. "x = x + 1"? As someone who has seen these symbols in math class and think they know what they mean that notation kind of suck.

gre 12y ago

The DSL for string formatting certainly doesn't look simple. (format t "~{~@(~A~)~^ ~}, because ~{~A~^ ~} is easier!" llthw (cddr llthw))

gaigepr 12y ago
I am only recently a lisp user but honestly, how is the format function far from: printf("something %s then %d finally %f!", "asd", 1, 1.2) As mentioned, there is a loop built into format. Since lisp also has a (list) function eg: (list 'a 'b 'c 1) I still don't see an argument beyond familiarity with the C style printf syntax for why format is bad/unreadable.
- wglb 12y ago
  There is a loop embedded in the lisp version.
mcosta 12y ago
I do not understant it, but with changing ~ with % I can imagine what it does.
ScottBurson 12y ago
It's complex because it's powerful. ~A is the most common directive; it simply prints an object. '~{...~}' (braces) iterates over a list, applying the directives within it to the list elements. Within that construct, '~^' exits if the last element of the list has been consumed; it's used here to keep the separating space from being printed after the last element. '~@(...~)' (parens) capitalizes words in the output of the directives it contains, downcasing the non-initial character of each word. So there's a lot more power here than in 'printf' control strings. If you find the more exotic notation unintuitive -- and you certainly wouldn't be alone -- you don't have to use it.
- gre 12y ago
  It's just disingenuous to say that LISP has extremely simple syntax and then show the DSL for format, which is anything but LISPy or simple.

rtpg 12y ago

Simplicity of syntax does not translate to ease of use. Or else we'd all be programming in one-instruction Turing Tarpit.

kazinator 12y ago
That's right; Lisp's syntax is not only simple; it is simple while retaining the power to combines together and express any syntax tree. If you put on special Lisp goggles, you can see S-expressions inside the syntaxes of other languages.