#define private public - Claus Brod on stuff (16 Apr 2009)

topic end
<!--
   * Set TOPICTITLE = #define private public - Claus Brod on stuff (16 Apr 2009)
-->

<style type="text/css">
pre {background-color:#ffeecc;}
</style>

%STARTINCLUDE%
<a name="16"></a>

---+++ [[DefinePrivatePublic20090416WhyIAdmireLisp][Reasons To Admire Lisp (part 1)]] (16 Apr 2009)

<img src="%ATTACHURLPATH%/sponge.png" alt="sponge.png"  width="200" height="150" style="float:right;" />

<summary>
When I tell people that I like and admire Lisp, they will typically roll their eyes and/or give me 
some pretty weird looks - and then they'll ignore me for the rest of their lives.
</summary>

Well, after all those years, I'm usually not hurt anymore. Instead, I just giggle to myself like 
the proverbial mad scientist. You see, in the past few years there has been such a _huge_ surge 
of interest in functional and dynamic languages that everybody and their sister _already_ programs 
in a Lisp-like language, only without knowing it. Or, at the very least, they use a language
or programming environment whose designers adopted very significant amounts of Lispy concepts. 
Examples: C#, <nop>JavaScript, Ruby, Python, Scheme, Groovy, Perl, Smalltalk, Java - and, in fact, 
pretty much _any_ language running on top of the CLR or JVM. (Heck, even C++ programmers will
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x][soon learn lambdas and closures]]...)

Being an old fart, my memory doesn't serve me as well as it 
used to, hence my bias towards simple concepts and simple solutions which are easy to 
memorize.

For starters, a compelling reason to fall in love with Lisp is its _syntactical_ 
simplicity. Lisp probably has the easiest syntax of all programming languages, maybe
with the exception of Forth-like languages. Want proof? This morning, a good
soul over at [[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming][reddit]] pointed me to
results of the University of Geneva's <nop>HyperGOS project: A comparison of BNF graphs 
for various languages. Lisp's 
[[http://www.cui.unige.ch/db-research/Enseignement/analyseinfo/LISP/BNFlisp.html][BNF]] looks like this:

<pre>
s_expression = atomic_symbol / "(" s_expression "."s_expression ")" / list 

list = "(" s_expression < s_expression > ")"

atomic_symbol = letter atom_part

atom_part = empty / letter atom_part / number atom_part

letter = "a" / "b" / " ..." / "z"

number = "1" / "2" / " ..." / "9"

empty = " "
</pre>

Now compare the above to, say, 
[[http://www.cui.unige.ch/db-research/Enseignement/analyseinfo/JAVA/BNFindex.html][Java]].
(And yes, the description above doesn't tell the whole story since it doesn't cover any 
kind of semantic aspects. So sue me.)

Oh, and while we're at it: [[http://briancarper.net/blog/lisp-syntax-doesnt-suck][Lisp Syntax Doesn't Suck]],
says Brian Carper, and who am I to disagree.

So there.

<!--
http://www.paulgraham.com/rootsoflisp.html
-->

---

%STOPINCLUDE%

%COMMENT{type="below" nonotify="on"}%

---

I know the feeling very well, many programmers have just a few bad memories of the weird AI language that used recursion for everything and that they learned on pen and paper together with prolog and tons of complicated algorithms.

Little nitpicking, in your example languages you mention scheme which is a member of  Lisp family of languages. 

-- Slobodan Blazeski - 22 Sep 2009

You're right, of course - Scheme is a Lisp, not just a language inspired by Lisp.
(Had I spelt it LISP, then it'd be the language invented 
in the 50s, therefore being a forerunner of Scheme, whereas "Lisp" is ambiguous.)

-- Main.ClausBrod - 22 Sep 2009

---
to top
End of topic
Skip to action links | Back to top
You are here: Blog > DefinePrivatePublic20090416WhyIAdmireLisp

r1.3 - 22 Sep 2009 - 16:37 - ClausBrod to top
Blog