Comments on: Lisp and Clojure: prefix notation and parentheses http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/03/lisp-and-clojure-prefix-notation-and-parentheses/ Software engineering in a computational biology environment Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:36:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: zzorn http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/03/lisp-and-clojure-prefix-notation-and-parentheses/comment-page-1/#comment-943 zzorn Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:52:27 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=205#comment-943 In the end, aren't all programming languages basically just synthetic sugar, on top of machine code (from an engineering perspective), or on top of a Turing machine / lambda calculus / or equivalent (from a theoretical perspective). Every move to a higher level programming language is just a layer of syntactic sugar converting the language constructs back to a lower level language. So from this perspective, syntactic sugar is needed for all languages, the interesting problem is finding out what syntactic sugar is best suited for a given purpose. In the end, aren’t all programming languages basically just synthetic sugar, on top of machine code (from an engineering perspective), or on top of a Turing machine / lambda calculus / or equivalent (from a theoretical perspective).

Every move to a higher level programming language is just a layer of syntactic sugar converting the language constructs back to a lower level language.

So from this perspective, syntactic sugar is needed for all languages, the interesting problem is finding out what syntactic sugar is best suited for a given purpose.

]]> By: tiago http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/03/lisp-and-clojure-prefix-notation-and-parentheses/comment-page-1/#comment-866 tiago Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:09:47 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=205#comment-866 Interestingly, I never use Java in my examples. I use Prolog, a language that can do what Lisp do without resorting to the "hack on top" which is macros. The argument that I try to make comes precisely from the opposite direction of imperative programming: Comes from logic programming. I don't know where I fail to get that message across. But considering that I hardly refer Java, I am starting to suspect some people read what they want to read, and not what I trying to transmit. Lisp obviously suffers from the same problem as Prolog: As it is really a nice and elegant solution, it tends to breed some level of arrogance. Understandable, but self-destructive at the end. Interestingly, I never use Java in my examples. I use Prolog, a language that can do what Lisp do without resorting to the “hack on top” which is macros.

The argument that I try to make comes precisely from the opposite direction of imperative programming: Comes from logic programming.

I don’t know where I fail to get that message across. But considering that I hardly refer Java, I am starting to suspect some people read what they want to read, and not what I trying to transmit.

Lisp obviously suffers from the same problem as Prolog: As it is really a nice and elegant solution, it tends to breed some level of arrogance. Understandable, but self-destructive at the end.

]]> By: Patrick Logan http://tiago.org/cc/2009/12/03/lisp-and-clojure-prefix-notation-and-parentheses/comment-page-1/#comment-865 Patrick Logan Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:45:53 +0000 http://tiago.org/cc/?p=205#comment-865 Apparently a number of people like Java's syntax, yet there are very few infix operators in Java. Nor can they be extended. Lack of infix operators in Lisp does not seem to be the reason for fear of Lisp's sexprs. Infix math expressions go back decades in Lisp... they're easy to implement. Most Lisp programmers don't give two hoots and a holler for them, though. Anyway Lisp is deep, deeper than syntax. I think people are generally taught imperative programming, not applicative. Lisps tend to have better support for various mathematics than the curly-braced languages to boot, when it comes to semantics, richness, and accuracy. Whatever. Apparently a number of people like Java’s syntax, yet there are very few infix operators in Java. Nor can they be extended. Lack of infix operators in Lisp does not seem to be the reason for fear of Lisp’s sexprs.

Infix math expressions go back decades in Lisp… they’re easy to implement. Most Lisp programmers don’t give two hoots and a holler for them, though.

Anyway Lisp is deep, deeper than syntax. I think people are generally taught imperative programming, not applicative.

Lisps tend to have better support for various mathematics than the curly-braced languages to boot, when it comes to semantics, richness, and accuracy.

Whatever.

]]>