An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
stopa.io
An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#2If you found this interesting and want more, then I think this is a good follow up to read next [1]. It takes a similar approach to introducing the code-as-data idea, but uses xml instead of json as an introductory structure.
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#3This is wonderfully written, thank you!
I'll be sending this to friends who still haven't quite gotten their heads around 'why sexps'. :)
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#4The Lisp still looks like Lisp, but the JavaScript barely resembles what JS looked like the last time I used it heavily (~10-15 years ago.)
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#5If you found this interesting and want more, then I think this is a good follow up to read next [1]. It takes a similar approach to introducing the code-as-data idea, but uses xml instead of json as an introductory structure. [1] http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html
Agree - Slava’s article has gotten a lot of action on hn over the years.
(https://hn.algolia.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defmacro.org%2Fra... 0)
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#6If you found this interesting and want more, then I think this is a good follow up to read next [1]. It takes a similar approach to introducing the code-as-data idea, but uses xml instead of json as an introductory structure. [1] http://www.defmacro.org/ramblings/lisp.html
Author here: Am a fan of Slava, and loved his essay on Lisp. Highly recommend!
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#7IMO, by far the most confusing thing about lisp syntax is not code data duality, but instead that when you actually dive into the specs for these languages, its actually still really complicated and full of edge cases. A "toy" lisp can be simple sure, but "real" lisps aren't.
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#8IMO, by far the most confusing thing about lisp syntax is not code data duality, but instead that when you actually dive into the specs for these languages, its actually still really complicated and full of edge cases. A "toy" lisp can be simple sure, but "real" lisps aren't.
The formal Scheme syntax spec is, what?, a few pages. Far smaller than any other "real" language I'm aware.
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#9This is wonderfully written, thank you! I'll be sending this to friends who still haven't quite gotten their heads around 'why sexps'. :)
Thank you for the kind words! :)
Re: An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
#10I've never really bothered to learn lisp, but this is incredible. I get it now.
That being said, I wonder how data types would work as opposed to lists. What would a language based around maps look like?