Re:Lisp is sin
by yummyfajitas on Tuesday September 01, 2009 @01:47PM
(#798469)
Something I've never gotten around to is building an algolish-lisp -> lisp translator.
[a, b, c] -> '(a b c)
f(x) -> (f x)
Some syntactic sugar:
{
f(x)
g(x)
} ->
(progn
(f x)
(g x)
)
You can do these within PLT scheme quite easily. In fact, PLT Scheme comes with an Algol 60 reader that reads Algol 60 and turns it into scheme forms which are then executed. It's a cute trick.
This looks great for trivial code, but what about more complex code?
destructuring-bind([a b &rest c] some-list lambda([x] +(a b x)))
loop(for i from 1 to 10 collect 1+(i)) with-current-buffer(get-buffer-create("foo")
save-excursion(
insert(text)
buffer-substring-no-properties(point-min() point-max())))
I've done things like this in Scheme - not robustly, but it's worth pursuing IMHO. I can't stand math formulas in SEXP notation. Array/slice/hash lookup notation would be nice too.
Lisp gets it right by excluding sugar from the language kernel, but a "batteries-included Lisp" should include it in a standard library.
I tried this with arc (worked with anarki based in arc2)
http://arclanguage.org/item?id=8172
The syntax is inspired by McCarthy's in his paper from 1958. It works, but i don't find it useful.
I never did understand this averseness to anything not algol-derived... I personally like Lisps syntax (fuck off, even though it looks different and uses "s-expressions" and code as data and all the rest - ITS STILL SYNTAX) and I like point free syntax and forth-like syntax and prolog intrigues me and ML has interesting syntax too and ...
My point is: ITS JUST SYNTAX! Syntax doesn't define the language, just the look. I do like a nice, clean, concise syntax though.
Syntax does define the language. It's very difficult to write macros for an ALGOL-style language. It's possible but very difficult. Some people are put off by Common Lisp's LOOP macro or the FORMAT function and will try and avoid using the more complex features of them. Those are small examples of how the syntax encourages, or discourages, the use of language features.
Hell, I even hate doing any complex shell scripting because I can never remember the difference between [ ] and [[ ]] and ( ) when using conditionals.
I program in C#, and lambdas and delegates are nice (I can't use expression trees because the company I work for standardizes on .NET 2.0). But the system is too gnarly, still verbose as fuck, and nowhere near as nice as Lisp (as Krishnan freely admits). This just increases the need for sophisticated developer tools and makes things more obscurantist, not less. C# is just another variation on Java, i.e. a way to drag Elvis types 10% closer to Lisp without depriving them of their oh so precious ALGOL syntax.
Fuck the priesthood, seriously.