There’s no use arguing. As the ancient Lisp proverb says, when the programmer is ready, the parens will disappear. Until then, you’re just wasting your breath.
No because the syntax is so awful. Programming languages are consumed by machines but written by humans. You need to find a middle ground that works for both. That's (one of the reasons) why we don't all program in assembly any more.
Lisp and similar are just "hey it's really easy to write a parser if we just make all programmers write the AST directly!". Cool if the goal of your language is a really simple parser. Not so cool if you want to make it pleasant to read for humans.
I've never used a Lisp either, but I get the impression that "forcing you to write the AST" is sort of the secret sauce. That is, if your source code is basically an AST to begin with, then transforming that AST programmatically (i.e. macros) is much more ergonomic. So you do, which means that Lisp ends up operating at a higher level of abstraction than most languages because you can basically create DSL on the fly for whatever you're doing.
That's my impression, at least. Like I said, I've never actually used a Lisp. Maybe I'm put off by the smug superiority of so many Lisp people who presume that using Lisp makes them better at programming, smarter, and probably morally superior to me.
As someone who writes a lot of Scheme, I agree that the math syntax is not good. There have been proposals to add infix expressions (https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/) but nobody seems to want them, or can agree on specifics.
However, code that is mostly function calls is fine for me, since those would have parentheses anyways in C++/Rust/whatever. In that case it makes the language more regular, which is nice for writing macros.
Earlier last year, I "quietly" introduced an infix support macro into TXR Lisp.
I devised a well-crafted macro expansion hooking mechanism (public, documented) in support of it.
It works by creating a lexical contour in which infix expressions are recognized without being delimited in any way (no curly brace read syntax translating to a special representation or anything), and transformed to ordinary Lisp.
A translation of the FFT routine from Numerical Recipes in C appears among the infix test cases:
The entire body is wrapped in the (ifx ...) macro and then inside it you can do things like (while (x < 2) ...).
In completing this work, I have introduced an innovation to operator precedence parsing, the "Precedence Demotion Rule" which allows certain kinds of expressions to be written intuitively without parentheses.
This view is false because what is hard to parse for machines also presents difficulty for humans.
We deal with most languages (Lisp family and not) via indentation, to indicate the major organization, so that there isn't a lot left to parse in a line of code, (unless someone wants to be "that" programmer).
> This view is false because what is hard to parse for machines also presents difficulty for humans.
Yes definitely to some extent, but they aren't perfectly aligned. Most languages make things a bit harder to parse for machines but easier for humans. Some get it wrong (e.g. I would say OCaml is hard to parse for humans, and some of C's syntax too like the mental type declaration syntax). I don't think you could say that e.g. Dart is harder to parse for humans than Lisp, even though it's clearly harder for machines.
I'm assuming the website is written in Loon and according to roadmap its version 0.4 and compilation is planned in 0.7. So it demonstrates that the language works, but its not optimised yet.
exactly! I didn't post this (thank u whoever did though) so wasn't ready to launch yet. but the idea is it will SSR and hydrate each page. I want to pull it all out into a framework congruent to Next.js
> Strongly typed languages strike me as providing detailed hints throughout the codebase about what "shape" I need my data in
I agree that seeing types is helpful, though typing them is also not necessary. Perhaps the solution is an IDE that shows you all the types inferred by the compiler or maybe a linter that adds comments with types on file save.
> I agree that seeing types is helpful, though typing them is also not necessary. Perhaps the solution is an IDE that shows you all the types inferred by the compiler
I don't care if the text is ai-written as long as it delivers the message that it is supposed to deliver correctly. If none of the engineers on the team feels like writing long announcement posts - why couldn't they use ai, check/correct its output and go back enjoy hacking smartwatches?
I think people are getting too fixated on how exactly each symbol was created instead of what the message is.
There is misunderstanding. There is nothing against using it for those cases, the problem is when it gets used for producing long and unverified slop or debatting against humans.
Thats awesome! Recently I was looking into making apps for my smartwatch that don't exist (like watch display with multiple timezones), and infrastructure to make your own apps is very poor.
One thing I wish for is Rust support, since its running Linux it should be possible, isn't it?
It would be possible to use Rust. Nobody got around working on it tbh. But simple things like your mentioned watchface idea are really quick to do in QML.
I like how you call peaceful protests when people throw huge rocks, break city infrastructure and damage property and take 0 accountability for it. And most likely don't pay taxes to fix it up later.
How convenient it must be to blame officers instead of bad actors just because you agree with their side.
This is purely pushing political agenda, you just covering it up.
Since you're so eager to construe his support for peaceful protest as support for civil unrest, I therefore think it's fair if I construe your defence of ICE to mean support for their extrajudicial executions and the people who dress up as ICE (ie: masked men dragging people at gunpoint into unmarked vans) to kidnap and rape people.
You can construe what you want, but I don't put my political (or any other views) into unrelated posts and try to conceal/justify it later.
My point is not about the views - its still free internet and most of us live in free speech countries - its about putting it out there while being fully aware that many people will read the news post about a popular language and then talking how its not a political statement.
You seem to have vastly misread his comment in your defensiveness: 1) his comment is not a concealment or a justification, it's an elaboration. This is more than mere semantic nitpick: he doesn't need to justify anything to you or conceal anything from you; he is not seeking your approval. Similarly 2) nor did he say it's "not a political statement", he said it "isn't some hypothetical political agenda", which to me has the extremely obvious meaning that it's not a virtue signal or other ulterior motive, that he may actually be dead by next week. If anything, he's confirming without a doubt that he included politics in his devlog, not denying it. Did his inclusion of "Abolish ICE" at the very bottom of his devlog really put you so off-kilter? Good grief, go outside.
I learned of this site via HN a few years back and someone mentioned that the author must be Russian and mentioned the characters from Kin Dza Dza. A quick search revealed the film is freely available on Youtube with English subtitles. It's a great film and thankful for floor796 in revealing it as well as being an amazing work of art.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it would be more correct to say that the author/artist is likely from a country that uses the Cyrillic script.
Yes, its just a piece of metal, are you trying to imply something related with using shrapnel to damage something? Well you can't use email in the same way.
>and you probably considered the sun, moon and five planets as gods.
I find it strange that today knowing much more about sun and moon we don't consider them as gods. Today we know for sure they are the origin of all life on this planet and yet many cultures decided to go for an abstract intangeable entities instead of what is directly in front of us and can't be debated.
reply