On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 5:15:07 PM UTC+5:30, BartC wrote: > On 18/04/2015 03:22, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:49:30 AM UTC+5:30, Dan Sommers wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:05:52 +0100, BartC wrote: > >> > >>> (Actually *I* would quite like to know why languages don't have > >>> switchable syntax anyway to allow for people's personal preferences.) > >> > >> You want LISP, the programmable programming language. > > I don't really want Lisp (not even with a shiny new syntax).
You do... See below > > > You got it!! > > One of the deep paradoxes in 'getting' programming is that you cant do > > programming without some syntax; and yet syntax is irrelevant. > > Yes, exactly! > > When I sometimes want to code in Python, why can't I used my usual syntax? > > The tabbing isn't so much of a big deal, but, for example, I normally > use ":=" and "=" for Python's "=" and "==" operators, and it can be a > nuisance when switching between syntaxes. (At least Python picks up the > use of "=" inside an expression, unlike C...) See McCarthy's interview http://www.infoq.com/interviews/Steele-Interviews-John-McCarthy This is after a life of Lisp and AI -- he died a couple of years after the interview. And in there he repeatedly asks for 'abstract syntax' languages -- as I see it the same as you are asking Of course one needs to distinguish Lisp-technology from Lisp-philosophy. I believe you and McCarthy are asking for Lisp philosophy as I am also: http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/html-is-why-mess-in-programming-syntax.html JFTR: The specific connection with html is somewhat facetious That programmers are stuck in text files 50 years after everyone else has moved on is more serious -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
