Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Nature of Lisp (2006)

defmacro.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#11

Post by ketralnis »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #3
kruhft wrote: post #2

"Why on Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!" What is it with statements like this? It just sounds like a 'meme' to me, that everyone hears (even from advocates like this one) at first that the 'syntax' (of which there is a lot less than most languages in a Lisp) is 'horrible'? Of course, we, the learn-ed of Lisp, say that after a while the 'parens just disappear', which they don't, b…

That said, it would be nice if lisp used square brackets for this instead. Easier to type on boring old US QWERTY.

Racket can use either. They are syntactically equivalent, but there are some community norms around when to use each. Racket’s included editor DrRacket takes the [ and ] keys and figures out which to use using those conventions, inserting either [ or ( as appropriate

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#12

Post by ajkjk »

kruhft wrote: post #2

"Why on Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!" What is it with statements like this? It just sounds like a 'meme' to me, that everyone hears (even from advocates like this one) at first that the 'syntax' (of which there is a lot less than most languages in a Lisp) is 'horrible'? Of course, we, the learn-ed of Lisp, say that after a while the 'parens just disappear', which they don't, b…

I don't really mind the parens, but the whole attitude feels indicative of a problem. Like - it's 2018 and people are still using 'cdr' and 'cons' as terminology and happily expecting other people to learn those words and not even feeling bad about it.

If the person justifying Lisp doesn't mind that the word 'cons' is terrible, why should I trust their aesthetic sense about anything? If I have to have "miserable notations" to get "coding nirvana", and coding nirvana is so great, why not fix the notations? do you just think everyone should have to struggle because you did?

I guess it feels like trying to determine which of these statements are true: (1) "Lisp is coding nirvana" (2) "Lisp is weird regressive nostalgia for a simpler era where nothing was typed and everyone used Emacs and memorized arcane terminology and shared macros on Usenet", and there are way too many signs that it's a lot of (2).

[edited to be less abrasive]

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#13

Post by eatonphil »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #10
VyseofArcadia wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, it would be nice if lisp used square brackets for this instead. Easier to type on boring old US QWERTY.

Some lisps use parenthesis and brackets interchangeably. Some people prefer to strategically alternate them, but you're free to use them exclusively. Guile Scheme, for example: scheme@(guile-user)> [list 1 2 3] $1 = (1 2 3) scheme@(guile-user)> (list 1 2 3) $2 = (1 2 3) scheme@(guile-user)> [car '[1 2 3]] $3 = 1

While true, this is not officially supported as part of the RnRS standard I believe. They set these characters aside as reserved for future use.

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#14

Post by krapp »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #3
kruhft wrote: post #2

"Why on Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!" What is it with statements like this? It just sounds like a 'meme' to me, that everyone hears (even from advocates like this one) at first that the 'syntax' (of which there is a lot less than most languages in a Lisp) is 'horrible'? Of course, we, the learn-ed of Lisp, say that after a while the 'parens just disappear', which they don't, b…

That said, it would be nice if lisp used square brackets for this instead. Easier to type on boring old US QWERTY.

I'd like to see square brackets replace the backtick.

I only have a cursory familiarity with lisps but I constantly find that too easy to miss.

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#15

Post by mikegerwitz »

eatonphil wrote: post #13
mikegerwitz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some lisps use parenthesis and brackets interchangeably. Some people prefer to strategically alternate them, but you're free to use them exclusively. Guile Scheme, for example: scheme@(guile-user)> [list 1 2 3] $1 = (1 2 3) scheme@(guile-user)> (list 1 2 3) $2 = (1 2 3) scheme@(guile-user)> [car '[1 2 3]] $3 = 1

While true, this is not officially supported as part of the RnRS standard I believe. They set these characters aside as reserved for future use.

Yes, you're correct. R7RS at least explicitly reserves brackets and braces, and only acknowledges parenthesis in its syntax.

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#16

Post by bluefox »

ajkjk wrote: post #12
kruhft wrote: post #2

"Why on Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!" What is it with statements like this? It just sounds like a 'meme' to me, that everyone hears (even from advocates like this one) at first that the 'syntax' (of which there is a lot less than most languages in a Lisp) is 'horrible'? Of course, we, the learn-ed of Lisp, say that after a while the 'parens just disappear', which they don't, b…

I don't really mind the parens, but the whole attitude feels indicative of a problem. Like - it's 2018 and people are still using 'cdr' and 'cons' as terminology and happily expecting other people to learn those words and not even feeling bad about it. If the person justifying Lisp doesn't mind that the word 'cons' is terrible, why should I trust their aesthetic sense about anything? If I have to have "miserable nota…

I read:

whyknow thing like word"and"sentence to write and plural and capitalization comma dot semicolon space question mark need write spaces between them wordamabobs

why don't fix notation???

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#17

Post by ajkjk »

bluefox wrote: post #16
ajkjk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really mind the parens, but the whole attitude feels indicative of a problem. Like - it's 2018 and people are still using 'cdr' and 'cons' as terminology and happily expecting other people to learn those words and not even feeling bad about it. If the person justifying Lisp doesn't mind that the word 'cons' is terrible, why should I trust their aesthetic sense about anything? If I have to have "miserable nota…

I read: whyknow thing like word"and"sentence to write and plural and capitalization comma dot semicolon space question mark need write spaces between them wordamabobs why don't fix notation???

I don't see your point. Do you disagree that things can be named badly?

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#18

Post by bluefox »

ajkjk wrote: post #17
bluefox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read: whyknow thing like word"and"sentence to write and plural and capitalization comma dot semicolon space question mark need write spaces between them wordamabobs why don't fix notation???

I don't see your point. Do you disagree that things can be named badly?

Point is: Lispers obviously don't care about what you care about. That is why they don't fix it: it's not broken for them.

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#19

Post by kuschku »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #3
kruhft wrote: post #2

"Why on Earth would anyone want to use a language with such horrific syntax?!" What is it with statements like this? It just sounds like a 'meme' to me, that everyone hears (even from advocates like this one) at first that the 'syntax' (of which there is a lot less than most languages in a Lisp) is 'horrible'? Of course, we, the learn-ed of Lisp, say that after a while the 'parens just disappear', which they don't, b…

That said, it would be nice if lisp used square brackets for this instead. Easier to type on boring old US QWERTY.

Square brackets are AltGr-8 and AltGr-9 on German T2, but Parens are Shift-8 and Shift-9, which is much nicer on the hands.

So I’m going to be against this.

Re: The Nature of Lisp (2006)

#20

Post by ajkjk »

bluefox wrote: post #18
ajkjk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see your point. Do you disagree that things can be named badly?

Point is: Lispers obviously don't care about what you care about. That is why they don't fix it: it's not broken for them.

If someone evangelizes something and doesn't see and doesn't apologize for obvious flaws ("I promise this is worth it even though it's obviously flawed!), that makes me seriously doubt their reasons for preferring it or their ability to empathize with other people.

At risk of being offensive: yes, it's clear that Lispers don't care, but that makes me think they're masochistic or autistic, not that I should use their favorite language.

Post reply on HN