3 ms·

Thanks for the response. > I was pointing out Lisp dialects are proof you can basically code with just three signs of punctuations: newlines [I think you meant

by sago 12y ago

Thanks for the response. > I was pointing out Lisp dialects are proof you can basically code with just three signs of punctuations: newlines [I think you meant whitespace generally], left parenthesis and right parenthesis. I agree. In fact, with SRFI49, you can do it with just newlines and spaces. My point is that you can write prose with just spaces, periods and capital letters too (or less). But the use of parentheses, dashes, colons, semicolons, question and exclamation marks, quotation marks, and ellipses, is not a bug. See the metaphor I'm getting at? > Are we also clear on the fact every programmer knows how to program in Lisp Yes, if by 'program in Lisp' you mean 'program in a lisp-like syntax'. I tend to think that syntax is a rather superficial thing, compared to learning the model of computation and the runtime environment. Then Lisp is quite different from C, say. A C programmer doesn't already know Lisp. One problem I had with the OP was that: it seemed to suggest the syntax 'was' Lisp. I think Python in Lisp syntax would be more Python than Lisp, personally.

thomaskrauss 12y ago
Okay, I understand better your point. (I have also misunderstood SRFI49 so it didn't help!). The things you described are features, right? But what is OP? Opening paragraph? > compared to learning the model of computation and the runtime environment There is indeed more important things to learn than syntax. The thing is, for Lisp, chainable action perimeters not only covers the syntax, it also covers the model of computation itself. The basic one at least, without macros and any object system. Still, that basic one is quite broad. On that question you actually anticipate another article I wanted to share: shortcomings of instructions. It's only logical. If in Lisp dialects the atom is the chainable action perimeter, what other languages have? The answer is the instruction and well, I will keep that for next week but you can read it if you want. The URL is http://www.vagrant-coder.com/articles/english/Shortcomings-of-instructions.html http://www.vagrant-coder.com/articles/english/Shortcomings-o...
- sago 12y ago
  > The things you described are features, right? Right, they provide additional structure that can in turn help someone express themselves. But you're right, the complexity can obscure some underlying simplicity. I suspect that the solution is to disentangle the two: to help programmers understand the computational model independent of the language. > it also covers the model of computation itself eval/apply is what I'd consider the model of Lisps, rather than chainable action perimeters. The two are linked, of course, former depending on the latter. I guess you probably mean roughly the same thing by it, so I'm not disagreeing, just saying what I was thinking of. I agree, the von Neumann model of computation is not necessarily useful if programmers believe it is the only model. But I think it is crucial for programmers to understand. OP = original post (i.e. the article on your site).

by sago 12y ago

thomaskrauss 12y ago

Okay, I understand better your point. (I have also misunderstood SRFI49 so it didn't help!). The things you described are features, right? But what is OP? Opening paragraph? > compared to learning the model of computation and the runtime environment There is indeed more important things to learn than syntax. The thing is, for Lisp, chainable action perimeters not only covers the syntax, it also covers the model of computation itself. The basic one at least, without macros and any object system. Still, that basic one is quite broad. On that question you actually anticipate another article I wanted to share: shortcomings of instructions. It's only logical. If in Lisp dialects the atom is the chainable action perimeter, what other languages have? The answer is the instruction and well, I will keep that for next week but you can read it if you want. The URL is http://www.vagrant-coder.com/articles/english/Shortcomings-of-instructions.html http://www.vagrant-coder.com/articles/english/Shortcomings-o...

sago 12y ago
> The things you described are features, right? Right, they provide additional structure that can in turn help someone express themselves. But you're right, the complexity can obscure some underlying simplicity. I suspect that the solution is to disentangle the two: to help programmers understand the computational model independent of the language. > it also covers the model of computation itself eval/apply is what I'd consider the model of Lisps, rather than chainable action perimeters. The two are linked, of course, former depending on the latter. I guess you probably mean roughly the same thing by it, so I'm not disagreeing, just saying what I was thinking of. I agree, the von Neumann model of computation is not necessarily useful if programmers believe it is the only model. But I think it is crucial for programmers to understand. OP = original post (i.e. the article on your site).