Given that most people alive today don't understand English at all, I don't think this claim holds up very well.
> For example "(add, 1, 2)" is axiomatically the best way to express adding two numbers, in a way that scales to arbitrary numbers of operations. It's superior to "(1+2)" because the plus sign is a single character (cannot scale), and therefore there are a limited number of them, and using symbols means humans have to memorize them rather than simply reading their name.
I'd be willing to wager that "1+2" is understood by far more people across the globe than "(add, 1, 2)".
* I never said LISP format was widely understood.
That was unclear given you kept calling out English, and not natural or human language more broadly in the rest of your comment. But I'll go with it.
> all my words in the literal sense, everything I said is still literally true.
No, they aren't. You need to make a stronger case than "Because I declared it axiomatically true".
+ has become part of nearly every language already, what's the value of picking one word (add) from one language (English) to replace it? Or to be more generous to say that every language should substitute for + whatever their language's word is. Now they can't communicate without a translator. Or, they could just use + as has been done for centuries. Why make things harder on ourselves?
So what about RPN? What about Forth and Postscript? Just as simple... just as terse... just as efficient... just as general.
And, for me, just as unreadable.
All RPN does is replace the easy to get right parenthesis with difficult to get right newline characters.
And I include myself in this.
Remember that for a lot of ordinary people, school algebra is almost impossible to follow and is the reason they stop studying maths as soon as they can. And that is simple infix notation.
Riddle me this then: When editing code full of parentheticals, why do devs find it helpful that IDEs can find and highlight the matching opening/closing parenthesis automatically? I mean, based on your logic, parenthesis just don't make things any easier, right? I'll leave the topic of "indentation" completely off the table too, because a single riddle is enough.
Me personally? I dislike them both. I find them both unreadable.
But both are compact and efficient... just really difficult.
You are trying to put words in my mouth that are not there. That is very rude. Do not do that, ever.
But also, as you have been throughout this thread, you are wrong.
Think about it: the entire class of error of mismatched stack height doesn't exist in Lisps.
There could be an operand stack, if the Lisp is translated to a stack-based byte code; but it's managed so the programmer isn't concerned about it.
((a b +) (a b) defun)
(((list pop) print) list while)But seriously, yeah computers are naturally 'Stack Machines' [almost] always, where they need the arguments pushed onto a stack before the 'verb' is executed.
So if we translate that sequence to language, stating the operands before the operation does follow the non-negotiable evaluation data flow.
I guess you have not gotten into stack or array programming languages yet?
Forth is insanely compact and then there is APL which is a complete other ballpark.
Or check out Rebol for a homoiconic language in a very different syntax.
Lisp is amazing but oh boy there is whole other world out there. It is just one possible local optima. One that I personally love but not the only one.
This is the point I take issue with. I agree with you that lisp is the simplest and "best" programming language. Unlike lisp, there is no clear "best" natural language that is more simple and composable than all other natural languages (I know that's not what your claiming, just pointing that out). The dimension of your "best metric" for language is pretty bizarre though; all you are saying is that spoken/written language, in general, is better than grunts and pointing. If you actually compare the space of natural language and the space of programming languages, which is much more interesting imo, I think you would have to agree that non-lisp programming languages are more similar to natural language because their development was more practical and unprincipled than lisp.
Since the word "best" always gets everyone's dander up on HN, I was very careful to point out we have to define our metrics (of comparison) before we can use that word, and that's precisely what I did.
I think one can argue that LISP is the "best" computer programming language based on a set of metrics that revolve around simplicity and composability. There's no simpler language. There simply cannot be, because there's nothing "extra" in LISP. It's the most compact (while still being human readable) way to define and/or call functions.
You can also argue that LISP is closer to English than any other programming language, because in English we use parenthesis's and lists to enumerate things related to what has been said. For example "(add, 1, 2)" is axiomatically the best way to express adding two numbers, in a way that scales to arbitrary numbers of operations. It's superior to "(1+2)" because the plus sign is a single character (cannot scale), and therefore there are a limited number of them, and using symbols means humans have to memorize them rather than simply reading their name. But "add" is a name one can read. Also "add one and two" is a valid English sentence, so all LISP programs are similarly valid English language expressions, where the parenthesis is merely used for grouping language "clauses".
If the world were ever to be forced to agree on one single high level programming language, it would necessarily need to be LISP for about 10 other huge reasons I could name: Everything from ease of writing parsers, to compression of code, simplicity, ease for learning, even as a young child, etc.