4 ms·

Am i the only one who likes lisp because of the parenthesis and the lack of syntax? The parens are the perfect way of representing the syntax trees, and you don

Am i the only one who likes lisp because of the parenthesis and the lack of syntax? The parens are the perfect way of representing the syntax trees, and you dont have to be bothered with remembering all the syntax and operators etc like with the other languages.

eru 17y ago
Yes. But significant indentation does not destroy this lovely property.
kingkongrevenge 17y ago
> the perfect way of representing the syntax trees Humans don't think in syntax trees.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Most humans don't. Some do.
- shiro 17y ago
  I do. When I think of algorithms I vaguely imagine DAG, which maps nicely to S-expr (the junction point maps to a tail function call). In languages with syntax, I have to add syntactic fluff to satisfy the compiler, which is mostly an extra annoyance. I don't say my way of thinking is the correct one. Some great programmers I respect have said they don't think in DAG (and naturally they choose languages other than Lisp as a primary tool).
abstractbill 17y ago
No, you're not the only one. Often when writing code in other languages I think in Lisp, and then translate.
kwantam 17y ago
No, definitely not. I agree with you 100%. The claim that somehow this retains all qualities of Lisp is absolutely ridiculous. The single most important property of Lisp is that programs are lists, i.e., code==data. "Indented" lisp breaks this. I'm not intending to troll when I say that people who don't like the parens just don't "get it."
- shiro 17y ago
  Not necessary that "indented" lisp breaks code==data property. Just like YAML can represent an arbitrary tree structure, indented syntax can be mapped to S-expr and vice versa. I suspect the reason that alternative syntax for Lisp doesn't fly is that, once you use Lisp enough, you start feeling too comfortable with S-expr and the editor's support on it to switch to alternative syntax. It only appeals to those who are new to the language. And the downside is that the editor support can't be as good as S-expr (I suppose; is python-mode capable of various C-M-something tricks?).
Tamerlin 17y ago
Nope, you're not :)

eru 17y ago

Yes. But significant indentation does not destroy this lovely property.

kingkongrevenge 17y ago

> the perfect way of representing the syntax trees Humans don't think in syntax trees.

rbanffy 17y ago
Most humans don't. Some do.
shiro 17y ago
I do. When I think of algorithms I vaguely imagine DAG, which maps nicely to S-expr (the junction point maps to a tail function call). In languages with syntax, I have to add syntactic fluff to satisfy the compiler, which is mostly an extra annoyance. I don't say my way of thinking is the correct one. Some great programmers I respect have said they don't think in DAG (and naturally they choose languages other than Lisp as a primary tool).

abstractbill 17y ago

No, you're not the only one. Often when writing code in other languages I think in Lisp, and then translate.

kwantam 17y ago

No, definitely not. I agree with you 100%. The claim that somehow this retains all qualities of Lisp is absolutely ridiculous. The single most important property of Lisp is that programs are lists, i.e., code==data. "Indented" lisp breaks this. I'm not intending to troll when I say that people who don't like the parens just don't "get it."

shiro 17y ago
Not necessary that "indented" lisp breaks code==data property. Just like YAML can represent an arbitrary tree structure, indented syntax can be mapped to S-expr and vice versa. I suspect the reason that alternative syntax for Lisp doesn't fly is that, once you use Lisp enough, you start feeling too comfortable with S-expr and the editor's support on it to switch to alternative syntax. It only appeals to those who are new to the language. And the downside is that the editor support can't be as good as S-expr (I suppose; is python-mode capable of various C-M-something tricks?).

Tamerlin 17y ago

Nope, you're not :)