Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages

Re:Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages by kazinator on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @07:33PM (#21644219)

> the depth of parenthesis in every other language does not matter - ie (expr) is equivalent to ((expr)).

You might want to rethink that hurried statement just a tad:

  // C
  for ((i = 0; i < MAX; i++)) {...}
  printf(("hello, %", name));
  #if defined ((__GNUC__))

  # Shell
  var=$((cat /etc/motd))

  # Pascal
  type color_type = ((Red, Green, Blue));

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages by mindslight on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @08:00PM (#21644369)

Sure, my phrasing was overly simplistic, applying in spirit to the way languages define general recursive expressions.

But if you want to be technical, most of your examples would not be considered expressions in the given language.

    int j = i = 0; i < MAX; i++; /* ? I think not. */

But sure, many languages also use parenthesis for things besides general expressions. Ultimately this argument is anti-productive nitpicking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages by kazinator on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @08:43PM (#21644584)

> most of your examples would not be considered expressions in the given language.

So that's a piece of cognitive load that you have to carry to know when the parentheses are on an expression, and do not change the meaning if compounded, versus when they are around something else where they may not be removed or compounded.

In Lisp, everything is an expression, and no there is no willy-nilly removal of nesting or compounding of nesting. That's less to remember.

Even fragments of forms are expressions, according to ANSI CL glossary terminology. If we have (let ((a b)) ...) then a, b, (a b), ((a b)) and let are all expressions. With the exception of b, what they are not is forms: expressions presented for evaluation.

> Ultimately this argument is anti-productive nitpicking.

Who started it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages by mindslight on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @09:17PM (#21644733)

> Who started it?

WTH? You, by nitpicking a general statement meant to connect two perspectives and maybe allow some synthesis between two starkly divided worlds.

I've had the Lisp kool-aid. I agree it makes for a great time. I can do without the proselytizing blast.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages by argv_empty on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @01:30PM (#21650533)

Perhaps you know more of kazinator's history than I do, but that HN account wasn't even created until 2014, so saying kazinator is the one who started this very old argument requires some extra evidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lisp-Flavored Programming Languages by mindslight on Monday December 02, 2019 @12:00PM (#21684236)

I was referring to kazinator's specific argument rooted in languages using parenthesis for things besides expression grouping. I didn't see how that language-lawyering affected my overall point.

FWIW "in Lisp [parenthesis] also mean another level of application" is also technically incorrect (nesting is not always application), but I think it gets the actual point across better than being more abstract.

[ Parent | on HN ]