[kazinator]

That's true if you write everything on one line. But how could you fail to notice that most Lisp code is written on multiple lines and indented? The structure is visually laid out, so as not to be maintained in anyone's head.

[snotrockets]

Line breaks only shorten lines, they do not change the reading direction. Yes, you can start at the bottom and read upwards, but that's unnatural for most.

Compare:

  something.first().second().third()

With:

  (third
    (second
      (first
         (something))))

The end from read must you to understand, and it gets more complicated as your code does. No wonder Clojure's threading macro is so popular, as it would allow you to write it as:

  (-> something first second third)

Fun fact: Lisp was never supposed to be written with S-expressions. They were intermediate representation, for bootstrapping. McCarthy designed M-expression, with function notation, inflix, and sugar'd cond and list; but all that was omitted due to lack of time, and we were left with S-exps.

[lispm]

> Lisp was never supposed to be written with S-expressions. They were intermediate representation, for bootstrapping.

That's not the complete picture.

The early Lisp manual had a definition for Lisp syntax. The Lisp syntax was based on M-expressions for code and S-expressions for data.

Basically what now is

    (append (quote (1 2 3))
            (quote (a b c)))

was

    append[(1,2,3);(A,B,C)]

where the function call uses M-Expression syntax and the data were S-expressions.

Then we have so-called S-Functions, which work with S-expressions. append is such an s-function.

McCarthy then defined a mapping from M-Expressions to S-Expressions, thus that M-Expressions could be represented (not just written, but also in memory) as S-expressions.

In the next step he defined new S-functions called apply and eval, which took M-Expressions as S-Expression data and computed the results of apply or eval operations.

Example use of apply:

   apply[(LAMBDA,(X,Y),(CONS,X,Y));((A,B),(B,C))]

Thus these s-functions could compute with code which was represented at runtime by s-expression data.

Thus such a program would use both code in M-Expression format and compute with code in S-Expression format.

Since these S-functions apply and eval could be themselves translated to s-expressions and get executed, the specific S-functions apply and eval could get executed by a s-expression evaluator.

The code above would then be written:

    (APPLY,(LAMBDA,(X,Y),(CONS,X,Y)),(QUOTE,((A,B),(B,C))))

which in modern way would be written as

    (apply (lambda (x y)
             (cons x y))
           (quote ((a b) (b c))))

Since programs thus were executed / computed as s-expressions, they were input, computed and printed as s-expressions.

Thus the idea of a simple s-expression meta-programming system made the idea of an additional step of m-expression syntax reading/printing less attractive.

[kazinator]

You have a strawman example of piping via .member() because those () sometimes have arguments; that's what they are there for. Function application has not gone away; it's just combined with obj.member access. It can easily become an unreadable mess that will need some way of splitting across lines and indenting:

  something.first(other.foo(bar.f(x, y)).memb, z).second(x.y()).third(a, b, c)

This:

  (third
    (second
      (first
         (something))))

is just function notation with the location of the opening parenthesis having been re-examined, and commas removed. Function application notation is found in a myriad languages: sin(cos(pow(x, 2))).

With the above indentation, it's very readable to me; it's very clear that calculation starts with (something) and moves in an outward direction.

  (-> something first second third)

Right, yes, so we have threading macros, and people use them. That's not all that goes left to right. Lisp's ancient progn (including implicit progn) goes left to right, as do the arguments of functions and most macros:

  (defun app ()
    (init)
    (event-loop)
    (cleanup)
    (exit 0))

Sequential binding can break up a nested "point-free" expression, as an alternative to threading:

  (let* ((a (first (something)))
         (b (second fi))
         (c (third se))
     ...)

[snotrockets]

Of course you could work around s-expressions (and make your ALGOL-formatted language looks like Lisp, a common complaint against my own code by my coworkers), that wasn't my argument.

Most aren't fond of Lisp syntax, regardless of how you dress it up, and thus writing in Lisps doom you to have fewer people to hand over your code to, and I don't think that scarcity is useful. I suspect the reason most don't like s-expression is that it forces the human reader to maintain a "mental stack", an exercise humans are not too good at, as demonstrated by human languages aversion of center embeddings.

[kazinator]

You seem to be stuck on this idea of deep function call nesting being an impediment, which is solved by foo.bar().baz() chained syntax using object dot notation.

But most mainstream languages have chained function call notation as a feature.

Furthermore, foo.bar().baz()... chaining is a fairly recently emerging idiom. It has been possible in a number of languages for decades already, but somehow didn't take off. You would hardly see chains of foo.bar().baz().xyzzy() in 1990 vintage C++ code bases, even though 1985 vintage C++ would easily support it.

Anyway, there is a dialect of Lisp which has integrated the dot syntactic sugar into S-expressions, according to this basic idea:

  This is the TXR Lisp interactive listener of TXR 257.
  Quit with :quit or Ctrl-D on an empty line. Ctrl-X ? for cheatsheet.
  Poke a few holes in TXR with a fork before heating in the microwave.
  1> '(quote x) ;; i.e. just like we have a 'x -> (quote x) sugar ...
  'x
  2> '(qref x)
  (qref x)
  3> '(qref x y) ;; we can have a x.y -> (qref x y) sugar
  x.y
  4> '(qref x y z)
  x.y.z
  5> '(qref x y z w)
  x.y.z.w
  6> '(qref x y 3 w) ;; (let's not when it's ambiguous with floating-point)
  (qref x y 3 w)
  7> '(uref x)  ;; ... and a .x.y (uref x y) sugar
  .x
  8> '(uref x y)
  .x.y
  9> '(uref x y z)
  .x.y.z
  10> '(uref x y 3 w)
  (uref x y 3 w)

Embedded compounds are possible, of course:

  11> '(qref (a) (b) c (d) e f (g))
  (a).(b).c.(d).e.f.(g)

I never intended this to be used for chaining! In fact, only in a fairly recent update to the list-builder object, did I fix it so it can do this:

  12> (new list-builder).(add 3).(add 4).(pend '(5 6 7)).(pend 8).(get)
  (3 4 5 6 7 . 8)

Needless to say, the methods have to return the object in order to make this possible. Before the update, the methods didn't have a specified return value.

In the first place, list-builder is an implementation mechanism under the build macro, which expresses it like this:

  13> (build (add 3) (add 4) (pend '(4 5 7)) (pend 8))
  (3 4 5 6 7 . 8)

so there is no reason to use list-builder directly in most code.

This chaining business is a minor benefit (if at all) of the dot notation. The main motivation is to make programming with structures and OOP more ergonomic. It has a big impact for programs that use data structures, because the use of data structures and OOP can pervade the entire program, and is a driver behinds its structure.

Anyway, anyone discussing S-expressions under the assumption that they do not have a dot notation that can be used for function chaining is simply unaware of the research having been done in this area in the TXR Lisp project.