[gritzko]

Thanks. I recently had to reinvent LISP to script my CRDT database. That was not much work, because I already had the notation (I use RDX, a JSON superset with CRDT types). Still, I stumbled at the idiosyncratic LISP bracketing. Luckily, RDX allows for different tuple notations. So, I styled it to look less alien to a curly-braced developer. Like this https://github.com/gritzko/go-rdx/blob/main/test/13-getput.j...

For example, print change-dir make-dir; is equivalent to (print (change-dir (make-dir) ) ) in the old money. I wonder if I am reinventing too much here.

Did LISPers try to get rid of the brackets in the past?

[drob518]

There have been many attempts to get rid of sexprs in favor of a “better” syntax. Even John McCarthy, the inventor (discoverer?) of Lisp had plans for an “M-expression” syntax to replace “S-expressions.” It never happened. The secret is that Lispers actually view sexprs as an advantage, not something to be worked around. Once you discover symbolic editing and code manipulation based on sexprs, you’ll never go back to weak line editing. That said, some Lisp dialects (e.g. Clojure and Racket) have embraced other symbols like square and curly brackets to keep the code more terse overall and optically break up longer runs of parentheses.

Probably the best example of a “Lisp without parentheses” is Dylan. Originally, Dylan was developed as a more traditional Lisp with sexprs, but they came up with a non-sexr “surface syntax” before launching it to avoid scaring the public.

[xedrac]

I actually really appreciate Racket's judicious use of square brackets in let expressions. It just makes visual parsing that much easier.

[drob518]

Exactly. I also like Clojure’s use of square brackets for vectors and curly braces for maps. It eliminates all the “vector-” and “map-” function calls.

[xedrac]

Those are big quality of life improvements. I wish the other lisps would follow suit. I suppose I could just implement them myself with some macros, but having it standard would be sweet.

[tmtvl]

The Revised Revised Revised Revised Revised Revised Report on the Algorithmic Programming Language Scheme (R6RS) specified that square brackets should be completely interchangeable with round brackets, which allows you to write let bindings or cond clauses like so:

  (let ([a (get-some-foo 1)]
        [b (get-some-foo 2)])
    (cond [(> a b) -1]
          [(< a b) 1]
          [else 0]))

...but I hate that, I'd much prefer if square brackets were only used for vectors, which is why I have reader macros for square brackets -> vectors and curly brackets -> hash tables in my SBCL run commands.

[drob518]

I think the R6S behavior helps with visual matching, but squanders using square brackets for something more useful (e.g. vectors), which is a shame. Another thing Clojure does is copy Arc in eliminating parentheses around the pairs of forms in let bindings and cond forms, which really aren’t needed. It just expects pairs of forms and the compiler objects if given an odd number. The programmer can use whitespace (notably newlines) to format the code so the pairings are visibly apparent. That reduces a surprising amount of needless parentheses because let binding forms are used all over (less so cond forms).

[tmtvl]

Yes, and it has never stuck. Even the great John McCarthy, the very creator of Lisp, couldn't manage it: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-expression>.

[jbritton]

I sometimes wonder if the issue is really the parentheses or the ease of nesting. In LISP it’s natural to write (f (g (h x))). Whereas most people are used to. a = h(x); b = g(a); c = f(b);

In C/C++ most functions return error codes, forcing the latter form.

And then there are functional languages allowing: x -> h -> g -> f but I think the implicit parameter passing doesn’t sit well with a lot of programmers either.

[jrapdx3]

Interesting comment. I found the lisp/sexpr form instantly understandable. While the others weren't hard to grasp it took a moment to consciously parse them before their meaning was as clear. Perhaps the functional arrow notation is least appreciated because it's seems more abstract or maybe the arrows are just confusing.

More likely than not it's a matter of what a person gets used to. I've enjoyed working in Lisp/Scheme and C, but not so much in primarily functional languages. No doubt programmers have varied histories that explain their preferences.

As you imply, in C one could write nested functions as f (g (h (x))) if examining return values is unnecessary. OTOH in Lisp return values are also often needed, prompting use of (let ...) forms, etc., which can make function nesting unclear. In reality programming languages are all guilty of potential obscurity. We just develop a taste for what flavor of obscurity we prefer to work with.

[AlexeyBrin]

If you don't get an answer here, try to contact the author directly through his website, he is pretty responsive.

[bryanlarsen]

Many times. A google for "sweet expressions lisp" will give you a bunch of implementations and opinions.

[gritzko]

Aha, thanks https://dwheeler.com/readable/

[lanstin]

I laughed at this one: I have more faith that you could convince the world to use esperanto than [to use] prefix notation. - Paul Prescod

Thanks.

[fermigier]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Dylan