[btilly]

Here is my theory.

When we read code, we use our language abilities. Our ability to read syntax uses some sort of built in grammar recognition, which has a maximum capacity that it can handle and doesn't abstract well. Thus in "normal" programming languages a certain amount of flow of control is pushed into syntax and grammar, and the offloading of that work makes it easier.

Lisp goes the opposite way. There is pretty much no syntax, thus all flow of control is automatically pushed to your higher reasoning area, which suddenly does a lot more work and you notice it. Thus it feels like more work. The tradeoff is that everything is more flexible and easier to build abstractions on. But after you have programmed enough Lisp, the "flow of control" key words get wired properly into your grammar processing, and you stop noticing the effort again. But it takes longer for your brain to start processing things this way.

Something similar happens in normal language. The same grammar areas of the brain pay attention to pauses, speech emphasis, and so on. Which in written form we notice as punctuation. But it is also wired to pick up and process small connective words like and, not, or, etc.

Note, I have no evidence for my theory other than "it makes sense to me". However it is based on my limited knowledge of how brains process speech, which we have learned about because of the fact that when strokes take out specific areas of speech, we wind up with specific speech impediments.

[stan_rogers]

It's not so much that Lisp has no grammar, but that it's a VSO language (or it has the tail-first/head-final parameter set, if you prefer), where infix programming languages more closely resemble the SVO natural languages most of us in Europe or North America are used to. I'm sure that something more "normal" like Python, C, Pascal or BASIC would be as hard for uninitiated speakers of verb-first languages to wrap their heads around.

[bdr]

That's a fair point, but it's a different point than the one btilly is making. (I'm not trying to be rude, I just think btilly's theory is interesting enough to merit some defense.)

Consider the formal grammar that might be used to implement a programming language. When we use the word 'grammar' here, it's obvious that Lisp has less of it than, say, Python. It's roughly equivalent to saying that Lisp has less syntax. So, his argument is independent of any VSO/SVO distinction.

Ben is arguing that Python's additional syntax, by formalizing common structures, allows us to (in some sense) externalize the inherent complexity of a problem (i.e. out of our brain). The downside is that it introduces some rigidity into the language. Lisp makes a different tradeoff: we are forced to handle all of the complexity ourselves, but in return the language is flexible enough that we can build exactly the right abstractions for our problem. There's a kind of conservation law.

[lispm]

Lisp has a lot of syntax. Check out the Common Lisp Hyperspec and the syntax for DEFMACRO, DEFCLASS, LET, LABELS, LOOP, ... and others.

[martinced]

Yes and Clojure has a lot of syntax too. However that is still nothing compared to the syntax of other languages, like Java. The amount of syntax in a langage like Java is just maddening: even keyword (like final) have totally different meaning depending on their context.

So while I think that it's somehow wrong to always paint Lisp dialects as "having almost no syntax", I do also think that it's totally correct to say: "Lisp dialects have almost no syntax compare to mainstream language".

P.S: don't get me started on JavaScript where syntax gets inserted for you automagically, leading to bugs that can be very hard to track (re- Crockford on the error that inserting automated semi-colons in JavaScript was).

[lispm]

Have you ever looked at Common Lisp syntax?

Just the LOOP macro:

http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/m_loop...

[btilly]

I meant to say "no syntax" there. I've now changed it.

I wouldn't say that the VSO vs SVO distinction is Lisp vs infix languages. Because in an infix language I can and do write things of the form do_this(some_thing, various, parameters).

However it does come up with OO programming where we have some_thing.do_this(various, parameters). Versus the CLOS (do_this some_thing various parameters). People seem to prefer the standard OO syntax even though the CLOS approach is more general (since do_this will dispatch to the correct method based on its parameters, and can pay attention to more than one parameter to do so if needed).

[lispm]

CLOS is more:

    (do-this-process object1 object2 .. object-n)

Like:

    (collide ship1 ship2)

or

    (render document1 printer1)

[aerique]

And then people call Lisp unreadable :-(

Even though I started out with Algol-like languages I never liked all the different rules for braces, parens, comma's, square braces, assignment, variables, etc. etc. so Lisp was a natural fit for me.

[a_p]

Modern English is not exclusively an SVO language. You probably aren't aware of how often you use VSO sentences. For example, it is very common for interrogative sentences (questions) to have an inverted order. For example:

  Where is the (object)?
  When was your last birthday?
  Whither wander you? — Shakespeare

All of those sentences use inverted word order. One of the reasons that English is so expressive is that it uses both inflections and word order to determine the meaning of a sentence.

One of the great things about Lisp is that it allows you to define your own infix operators.

[kyllo]

Sorry, but these are not actually examples of VSO word order. "Is," "was," and "wander" are the verbs in your example sentences.

"Where," "when," and "whither" are interrogative pronouns. They are the objects of the "to be" verbs. These sentences are actually OVS.

[a_p]

Thanks for catching my mistake. My mistake is especially embarrassing because term "inverted order" refers to sentences that have the verb second and the object.

[adsr]

On the other hand, I think that a prefix notation more closely resembles the way natural languages are spoken in the aforementioned parts of the world. For example (+ 1 2) if read aloud would become "add 1 and 2", which sounds like a verbal instruction. Reading infix notation aloud in many ways strikes me as less natural, perhaps it's something that is learned from an early age and thus appear natural.