Hi, Random thought from a very tired person. :)
Programmers manipulate tiny pieces of reality, so tiny that quantum effects come into play. [1] Many of us (unknowingly) train our visual senses to help us calculate these strange manipulations with less strain. Maybe if we train it on too narrow a range of notations, it's harder to extend this training to slightly perturbed ones. [2] Lisp + Paredit helps me train kinesthetic parts too. The effects are maybe too submerged for me to introspect [3], but Lisp is oddly close to things my hands manipulate in normal life. I commonly hold groups of things. Those things may be delimited by enclosing objects; between them may lie empty-looking space. (Of course, in daily life I'm not causing things to suddenly blink out of existence or be enclosed. But my body seems to adjust to the concept fine.) Lisp representation may just be symbolic, but manipulating it isn't only like text editing. It lends itself to structure editing. [4] BTW, this post isn't about Lisp is better than language X. If someone like likes X better than Lisp, then cheers. All the best, Tj [1] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/11567/is-quantum-physics-used-in-manufacturing-cpus [2] Given that Lisp syntax isn't merely aesthetic, but radically simplifies some things, it should often be worth the retraining. BTW, programming languages are artificial sorts of languages. Humans have enormous difficulty with them compared to natural language; if anyone claims that C-like languages are easier for humans to compute than Lisp, ask for scientific studies. Or simply email Chomsky and ask him. [3] It's likely good that we have limits to introspection, because otherwise we probably couldn't function as well. I suppose this is when people start using mystical terms like "intuition". [4] I vaguely hear manipulating Java under Eclipse may be more advanced than Paredit, due to greater engineering effort. But this shouldn't affect the analysis. On Saturday, August 17, 2013 12:47:09 AM UTC+2, frye wrote: > > Oh thanks Steven. I've lately been thinking about human cognition, > intelligence, etc. So boning up on my Chomsky, Kurzweil, and so on. > > Remember that the original lisp syntax only had a few core features: > homoiconicity, first-class functions, recursion, garbage collection, etc. > But from this core, the most advance language features have been easily > added. Indeed, we're seeing this in real time, in Clojure: immutable data, > lazy sequences, concurrent programming with STM, etc. Now, while > theoretically possible, I don't think it's really feasible to implement > many of these features in Cobol or Pascal - languages from the same era. > Even Java has made a very clumsy attempt at closures, etc. But these other > languages can't compete with the LISP approach, I think because of their > syntax design. > > The human species still has an extremely limited understanding of how > consciousness (ie cognition) works. My suspicion though, is that aspect's > like the simplicity of lisp's syntax is what keeps it at the bleeding edge > of computer science and our notions of computation. As limited as that is. > > > Tim Washington > Interruptsoftware.ca / Bkeeping.com > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Steven Degutis > <sbde...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Great point Tim. When I first realized that most problems and solutions >> are language-agnostic, I started downplaying the importance of syntax. But >> now I think they're like apples and oranges. Sure, semantics and syntax >> live together, but one's not more important than the other. They're both >> important to get right, for different reasons. >> >> For instance, while function calls in Ruby are (typically) semantically >> similar to in Clojure, destructuring arguments in Ruby is much more limited >> than in Clojure, and in Clojure it's much more easily readable as well as >> more powerful. This is only a syntax thing though, but it's a powerful >> player in the feature-set. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Timothy Washington >> <twas...@gmail.com<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> I think it's a mistake to discount the importance of syntax to a >>> language. Human beings, as a species is heavily symbolic. Think of ancient >>> cave paintings, to pictograms, to scripts. We use these symbols to >>> communicate with each other, our outside world, and our abstract thoughts. >>> Whether it's written / spoken language, or math or music notation, we need >>> these symbols - it's a human thing. Dolphins or monkeys, while very >>> intelligent, do not, by themselves, use these written symbols to >>> communicate with each other. >>> >>> And I think it follows then, that the design of the syntax itself is >>> important. It's certainly true that abstract concepts (of computation in >>> this case) are the motive for using any given syntax. But the syntax >>> impacts and facilitates the kinds of ideas we can have, the ease with which >>> we can communicate them with each other, and so on. Anyways, my two cents. >>> >>> >>> -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
