The Nature of Lisp (2006)

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by kazinator on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @03:30PM (#9578637)

Or, rather, maybe it will read better, about a generation after the first crop of high schoolers start being taught

   f(x).sin().log()

instead of

   log(sin(f(x))).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by Someone on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @04:43PM (#9579154)

That should be

  x.f().sin().log()

and that is exactly what they type on their calculators:

[3] [1/x] [sin] [log]

(either that, or I am getting old. Modern graphing calculators may have different input modes)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by aaron-lebo on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @03:47PM (#9578776)

I get what you are saying, but when you are talking about programming languages as opposed to math or another domain, more people are familiar or comfortable with the former, hence the reason for numerous posts like the original having to explain why lisp's syntax is a good thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by kazinator on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @03:52PM (#9578810)

Posts explaining why Lisp's syntax is a good thing have to deal with moving the left parenthesis to include the function:

  log(sin(f(x)))) ->  (log (sin (f x)))

They don't have to evangelize function composition being indicated by nesting.

[ Parent | on HN ]