Re: Very poor Lisp performance

Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
>> Additionally (pun intended), we were all taught operator precedences in
>> conventional mathematics at a very young age. It seems at best odd and at
>> worst stupid to disregard this.
>
> I hope there's little disregarding or idiocy going on. Many Lisp users
> use other languages regularly, so it's understandably hard for Lisp's
> unusual syntax to be lost on them.

Yes. This brings me to my next question: what other FPLs do Lispers know?

> Now despite all this, Lisp DOES respect other traditions. Observe LOOP,
> which is like every for(;;) loop in every language rolled into one.
> Dirty and rewarding, the sort of thing which probably makes Haskellers
> and MLers scream indignantly.

Not really. OCaml has (more restricted) for loops and both SML and OCaml can
implement customised for loops.

> Also, there are infix parsers and whatnot
> floating around the net, for when conventional syntax is appropriate.

I heard that infix parsers are rarely used not because infix is worse but
because infix is unusual in Lisp code and increases incompatibility. Would
you agree with that?

>> There is unquestionably a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. Most
>> natural and programming languages have complicated grammars precisely
>> because it simplifies their use and makes them easier to understand.
>
> Would you please point us to evidence in this direction?

Firstly, do you agree that languages are evolving to be more concise?
Secondly, do you agree that more concise languages tend to have more
complicated grammars? Finally, what other reason could drive this
association?

I believe that languages are evolving to be more concise and to have more
complicated grammars. I can see no reason for complicating grammars unless
it aids brevity/elegance/comprehensibility. So I see the evolution of
natural and programming languages as a huge amount of evidence that
complicated grammars are used to simplify the use of languages.

IMHO, humans are very good at deciphering expressions written in complicated
grammars, and this is why we make things easier for ourselves by
complicating grammars. In particular, we are better at understanding many
short expressions written in the context of a complicated grammar, rather
than many long expressions written with a very simple grammar.

>> Yes. Readability and maintainability are inherently subjective. However,
>> they are both very important when comparing computer languages.
>
> Writing honest language vs. language benchmarks is notoriously full of
> landmines. Comparing readability sounds like its own Iraq.

Yes, absolutely.

> Lisp is different, there's no question about that. It may be outflanked
> in specific areas; and today's Common Lisp is simply one little
> milestone in its evolution. Once, it was believed that an M-expression
> syntax would replace the current S-expressions, but many liked sexps.
> In the future, and given enough funding, we can wishfully predict human
> interface improvements where IDEs project Lisp code in some
> conventional way to the user, just as webpages don't look like HTML
> markup.

Several people have now mentioned IDEs and I think that is something that I
have ignored until now and should probably spend some time on...

> Or perhaps sexps lead the way to a more sensible syntax than the weaker
> one which mathematicians developed. Many claim that Newton's calculus
> notation is less flexible than Leibniz's, and no doubt various number
> systems have varying disadvantages. Perhaps Fermat's margin wouldn't
> have been a problem if he had Lisp macros.

:-)

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Very poor Lisp performance
    ... > I heard that infix parsers are rarely used not because infix is worse but ... >>> natural and programming languages have complicated grammars precisely ... we are better at understanding many short expressions ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Very poor Lisp performance
    ... do you agree that languages are evolving to be more concise? ... > complicated grammars. ... concise OCaml code you have ever completed? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Very poor Lisp performance
    ... No. Hebrew is more concise than English. ... > I believe that languages are evolving to be more concise and to have more ... > complicated grammars. ... If that was true, you'd still be speaking Latin, or even some older language. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • When static typing is worth it
    ... typed languages like Lisp. ... developed more quickly in modern statically typed languages than ... static type system and remove run-time checks. ... incurs a run-time error if the list is ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: What is Lisp used for?
    ... My main languages are Perl, Java, and ColdFusion. ... Lisp PHP FlamingThunder). ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)