Re: How Lisp's Nested Notation Limits The Language's Utility

Forgive me for continuing this argument even though it isn't
particularly relevant to Xah's original post.

Joe Marshall wrote:
If the syntax is a problem, why haven't
any alternative syntaxes taken over for s-expressions?

On May 6, 3:45 pm, Jon Harrop <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

They have.

They have? Then where's the argument?

I've been programming in lisp quite recently and I don't recall
an algorithmic syntax. Did I miss something?

Mathematica uses more conventional syntax to handle expressions:

What does this have to do with lisp?


OCaml allows you to define infix operators and these can be used to compose
expressions.

What does this have to do with lisp?


So I think it is fair to say that s-exprs in Lisp have been superceded by
more efficient representations of expressions in most modern FPLs.

This makes no sense. I ask why alternative lisp syntaxes never took
off,
and you tell me about the syntax of unrelated languages.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: simple lisp interpreter
    ... there are probably many syntaxes that lead to the same object ... Yes but the OP was asking whether the "Lisp language" can be parsed by ... an LL parser, by which I understand that he means in textual source-code ... In the case of Common Lisp, parsing Lisp source code with an LL ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: How Lisps Nested Notation Limits The Languages Utility
    ... over for s-expressions? ... You asked why "alternative syntaxes never took off". ... Nothing Lisp specific ... CGOL (an alternative Lisp syntax), Dylan (a language with a strong ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)