2009/12/20 Alex Osborne <a...@meshy.org> > Phil Hagelberg <p...@hagelb.org> writes: > > "Alex Osborne" <a...@meshy.org> writes: > > >> But this is the same "great idea" that everyone who's ever used a lisp > >> since the dawn of programming has come up with and despite numerous > >> attempts, to my knowledge not a single one of them has ever taken off. > > > > You're forgetting about Dylan! > > Gosh. So I am. It was created by Apple, no less. It even lets you use > semicolons. Semicolons and Apple! That's got to be a recipe for > success with the superficial masses. > > Seriously though, there's plenty of examples that show that popularity > does not strongly depend on readable syntax (look at HTML, Ant, heck > Perl). But from either side, an argument based on an appeal to > popularity is sort of missing the point. I share the opinion of Mark > Engelberg and others. I don't mind Lisp syntax because it has benefits, > but it's definitely not as readable. The sweet expressions guy (David > Wheeler) covers this pretty well: > > http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/retort-lisp-can-be-readable.html > > I'm not sure if sweet expressions are the answer. Or even if there is > an answer. But for me editor support is key. I've overheard this > conversation countlessly, about so many languages: > > "Oh, what's that you're coding in?" > "Foobar. It's pretty awesome." > "Yeah, it looks pretty nice." > "See how you don't need to specify the blahs? The compiler just > figures it out." > "Nice! I might try it out. Does it work with Eclipse?" > "Well, sort of, but ..." > "Oh. Are there any other nice editors that work better with it? > Netbeans maybe?" > "Not really. There's an Emacs mode but ..." > "Oh. Well. Nevermind then. Some other time, maybe." > > I know David Wheeler's retort to the suggestion of tools is: > > If you have to use tools to make parens less of a problem, perhaps > you should use a better notation that removes extraneous characters > in the first place. > > But I'm not sure I agree with him. I find code (in any syntax) harder > to read without syntax highlighting. I also find it frustrating to > write without at least basic auto-indentation. We're going to want > tools anyway and Lisp's simple syntax and homoiconicity make it so much > easier to write them. > > Funnily enough, I know people who claim Python and Ruby are horrifying. > What do they prefer? XSLT. Yes, that XSLT. Yes, the W3C one. Really. > > Why? Better editor support. Structural editing, on the fly validation, > online previewing, XPath generation, backmapping, extensive > auto-completion, profilers, debuggers, graph and table visualizations, > WYSIWYG XSL-FO report generators, the list goes on and on. The language > and syntax are quite frankly awful, but boy do they have some nice > tools. > > The more I use paredit's structural editing the more I find I can't live > without it either. The one annoyance I have with it is when I > accidentally manage to insert a stray bracket and it gets confused. But > maybe here there's something to be learned from the XSLT folks, even if > their serialization format leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe paredit > should be taken to its logical conclusion: just edit data structures > directly, don't worry about the text. > > Let your editor display and edit infix math. Heck, let it show you > complex math expressions with LaTeX formatting for the ultimate in > readability. Let it show nesting just with indentation. > > When you save the file, what does your hypothetical editor do? It > writes things out, properly indented, in that good-old relatively easy > to parse (for both man and machine) syntax from time immemorial. > > Can we have our cake and eat it too? >
I really hope that one day I can bring ccw to this level of functionality :) > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
