When people encounter Lisp syntax for the first time
-
Lisp uses it, with the fun extra part that operators are just normal functions - so instead of
foo(bar)you get(foo bar), or for operators1+1+2becomes(+ 1 1 2). It’s a really fun language even just for being different than most, I def recommend playing around with it if you’re looking for something new.The most interesting part about Lisp is homoiconicity:
(+ 1 1 2) is literally a list with symbol “+” and 3 numbers.
Which allows to build the most powerful macro possible, manipulating code (with data as a tree-like structures) and changing it into whatever else at compile time.
Now if only there was any good use for macros, this would be the best language
-
This post did not contain any content.
Does that make Lisp a language with significant white space?
-
The most interesting part about Lisp is homoiconicity:
(+ 1 1 2) is literally a list with symbol “+” and 3 numbers.
Which allows to build the most powerful macro possible, manipulating code (with data as a tree-like structures) and changing it into whatever else at compile time.
Now if only there was any good use for macros, this would be the best language
Threading is a great case for a macro.
(-> x (* 2) (/ 3) (- 1))Is the same as
(- (/ (* x 2) 3) 1) -
And then there’s Haskell which takes the whole thing a step further still.
Wait, what works in Haskell that doesn’t in Lisp, exactly? Are the spaces not just function composition?
-
Threading is a great case for a macro.
(-> x (* 2) (/ 3) (- 1))Is the same as
(- (/ (* x 2) 3) 1)Sure it’s not like it has no uses, but it’s something languages have built-in as syntax sugar or operators, and you rarely need to built your own macro for anything.
-
The fun part comes from using it without syntax highlighting, so you can regularly play „find the missing paranthesis“.
Editing lisp with ed is the best way to learn it.
-
Sure it’s not like it has no uses, but it’s something languages have built-in as syntax sugar or operators, and you rarely need to built your own macro for anything.
Have you ever used a domain specific language? My intuition says, “no.”
-
of at least one dialect of BASIC that allowed subroutine calls to lack their parentheses
Did sub calls normally have parentheses in BASIC?
-
of at least one dialect of BASIC that allowed subroutine calls to lack their parentheses
Did sub calls normally have parentheses in BASIC?
Yes. Most early BASICs even required that any reference to a function name, in definition or calling, be preceded by an
FNkeyword as well as the parentheses.QBASIC, Visual BASIC and the related dialects of BASIC found in MS Office and LibreOffice all have slightly better syntax for defining and calling functions than the older BASICs, but they all still require parentheses on their subroutine parameter lists too.
At best, you might be able to call a subroutine by name with no empty parentheses after it, but as soon as you need parameters, you’ll need parentheses around them.
But like I say, there was at least one rare BASIC that didn’t need them, so I’m assuming there might have been others that I’m not aware of.
-
And then there’s Haskell which takes the whole thing a step further still.
Wait, what works in Haskell that doesn’t in Lisp, exactly? Are the spaces not just function composition?
My mistake. I had somehow missed or forgotten that Lisp also supports currying, which is what I was thinking of as Haskell taking further. There might be other things regarding type declaration and such, but that’s a little beyond me to confirm or deny at the moment.
