Chris's Wiki :: blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics Commentshttps://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics?atomcommentsDWiki2008-09-27T01:38:25ZRecent comments in Chris's Wiki :: blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics.From 65.172.155.230 on /blog/programming/SyntaxAestheticstag:CSpace:blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics:48500fded8463a6636a0a24fc220980cfd91d226From 65.172.155.230<div class="wikitext"><p>Actually I'd argue that python has less syntax sugar than lisp, at least with lisp most editors can easily be informed of how to move up or down a "block". Or from the begining to the end of the conditional in an if (this is possible in python if you treat multiline conditionals as evil, or always wrap them in parens).</p>
<p>The fact is wants you to write "if foo and bar:" practically guarantees I need a high level syntax highlighting editor, and while that's almost a must in lisp to edit reading doesn't require one.</p>
<p>Hell python is the <code>only</code> language I use where I can't just cut and paste code and hit tab a bunch of times to re-indent it at it's current level (probably the biggest annoyance I have with it's lack of syntax, but far from the only one).</p>
</div>2008-09-27T01:38:25ZFrom 89.202.147.22 on /blog/programming/SyntaxAestheticstag:CSpace:blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics:cc8e123b2bd3cb5536a6f89cce83a575ffc711cbFrom 89.202.147.22<div class="wikitext"><p>Although certainly not as complex as C's, python has syntax(sugar).</p>
</div>2008-09-26T17:12:48ZFrom 65.172.155.230 on /blog/programming/SyntaxAestheticstag:CSpace:blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics:894d7b69ae627700f75b3f9a3f76b4346e8a3ef5From 65.172.155.230<div class="wikitext"><blockquote><p>To go out on a limb, I think that this is one of the drawbacks of languages like Lisp. By having no syntax they also have no syntactic aesthetics</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So you'd say the same thing about python, I presume?</p>
</div>2008-09-26T14:43:53ZFrom 192.18.17.40 on /blog/programming/SyntaxAestheticstag:CSpace:blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics:20663828618524396afea23bab506017721253a9From 192.18.17.40<div class="wikitext"><p>I prefer regularity over syntactic verbosity.
for e.g tcl</p>
<pre>
if [mytest] {
cmd1
} {
cmd1
}
</pre>
<p>is way more easier to read compared to the ones quoted above because there are no special cases (every thing is a command.) and ambiguities.</p>
</div>2008-09-26T11:58:10ZFrom 88.149.164.83 on /blog/programming/SyntaxAestheticstag:CSpace:blog/programming/SyntaxAesthetics:f6b06baadb74b6f619884cd53ef8a1d6d24fb1daFrom 88.149.164.83<div class="wikitext"><p>I personally don't miss the features of infix languages. The regularity if Lisp's syntax means, for instance, that there are no operator precedence rules which cause complex expressions in C to become either "verbose" by adding superflous parens(sometimes more than in the equivalent Lisp expression) or very difficult to parse unless you know by heart all levels of operator precedence.</p>
<p>If you ask any experienced Lisp programmer how they read Lisp code, you'll always receive this answer: after a while you get used to the parentheses and you ignore them, reading code instead in terms if words and geometric patterns: IF has its pattern, COND a different one, WHEN too, et cætera ...
Going from one style to the other requires time to adapt and different mental skills. <br>
Perhaps it's similar to how it's been noticed that reading alphabetic and ideographic scripts engages different parts of the cortex: it has been observered in sino- and nippo-americans that being dyslexic in reading English didn't influence the capacity of reading ideograms and vice-versa.</p>
</div>2008-09-26T10:31:05Z