3 ms·

> Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. Is not it stupid, to have an opinion about something you do not know and do not understand? > It's very un

by sklogic 11y ago

> Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. Is not it stupid, to have an opinion about something you do not know and do not understand? > It's very uniform which is convenient for implementers. It's not that uniform, really. It's so flexible that you can make it look any way you like. Any existing language syntax is a subset of this syntax. > because this uniform soup is hard to scan and also hard to write Just use a better text editor then.

ahoge 11y ago
> [Scheme's syntax is] not that uniform, really. "Scheme's very simple syntax is based on s-expressions, parenthesized lists in which a prefix operator is followed by its arguments. Scheme programs thus consist of sequences of nested lists." That's as uniform as it gets. Everything is the same.
- sklogic 11y ago
  Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. There are reader macros and all that bells and whistles. Does this look like S-expressions to you? https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal Secondly, even most Schemes allow to use [ ] and { } in addition to ( ).
  - ahoge 11y ago
    > Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. Did I talk about Racket anywhere? > Does this look like S-expressions to you? "MiniPacal implemented in Racket" Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go? https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro Totally legit "C".
    - sklogic 11y ago
      > Did I talk about Racket anywhere? This is a thread about Racket, if you did not notice. > Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go? This is exactly what Lisps are about. You've got a nearly raw AST at the bottom (S-expressions) and then you build up a hierarchy of languages on top of it.

3 ms·

> Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. Is not it stupid, to have an opinion about something you do not know and do not understand? > It's very un

by sklogic 11y ago

ahoge 11y ago
> [Scheme's syntax is] not that uniform, really. "Scheme's very simple syntax is based on s-expressions, parenthesized lists in which a prefix operator is followed by its arguments. Scheme programs thus consist of sequences of nested lists." That's as uniform as it gets. Everything is the same.
- sklogic 11y ago
  Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. There are reader macros and all that bells and whistles. Does this look like S-expressions to you? https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal Secondly, even most Schemes allow to use [ ] and { } in addition to ( ).
  - ahoge 11y ago
    > Firstly, Racket is not a Scheme. Did I talk about Racket anywhere? > Does this look like S-expressions to you? "MiniPacal implemented in Racket" Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go? https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro https://github.com/eudoxia0/cmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro http://research.swtch.com/shmacro Totally legit "C".
    - sklogic 11y ago
      > Did I talk about Racket anywhere? This is a thread about Racket, if you did not notice. > Are you really arguing that implementing some other language is the way to go? This is exactly what Lisps are about. You've got a nearly raw AST at the bottom (S-expressions) and then you build up a hierarchy of languages on top of it.