| |
| ▲ | bjoli 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A lot of people hate sexprs. Even seemingly reasonable folks. I imagined they have met students that really struggle with the syntax, while grokking the concepts easily. I myself have heard "the parentheses are hard to balance" and "after a while you dont even see the parentheses" enough times that I think maybe both can be correct. | | |
| ▲ | iLemming 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > A lot of people hate sexprs In all my time I have never come across a single Lisper, neither in person nor online, and I know far more than a few dozens, who once grokked the REPL-driven workflow and the structural editing idioms only to later, for whatever reason, suddenly start disliking or even hating s-expressions. All that so-called "hatred" stems from unfamiliarity. People fuss about Lisps lacking static types, without a single clue about how a "true" REPL trades them off for something different. They compare it to a Python or C# REPL and think "it ain't a big deal". Well, the Lisp REPL is quite different, and yes, a major deal - every single part of the Read-Eval-Print-Loop differs. They complain about "hard to deal with parentheses" and "I can't refactor without types" while having no clue how amazingly nice structural editing is in practice, that you never even think about parens - you only see structure, order and reason. | | |
| ▲ | lmm 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > In all my time I have never come across a single Lisper, neither in person nor online, and I know far more than a few dozens, who once grokked the REPL-driven workflow and the structural editing idioms only to later, for whatever reason, suddenly start disliking or even hating s-expressions. And we've never seen bullet holes in these parts of the plane, so there's no point putting armour there. | |
| ▲ | bjoli 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As I said, i think they have been teaching long enough to have a pretty good basis for the claim that racket's syntax can be a problem. I am firmly in the "after a while you don't see the parentheses" camp, but I have a friend who I respect a lot who works in clojure (with Emacs/cider/paredit) that just doesn't like it. I mean, I prefer sexprs above all other syntaxes, and I have had people tell me I just need to get used to indentation syntax or whatever they fancy. | |
| ▲ | jitl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | well, i guess i know what the grandparent was talking about when they said 'I myself have heard [...] "after a while you dont even see the parentheses" enough times [...]'. Thanks for the example. |
| |
| ▲ | drob518 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My editor balances my parentheses (Emacs Paredit). I rarely think about them. I just think structurally and the editor manages the details. | | |
| ▲ | psychoslave 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It really feels like, "when I move through the wasteland, I only focus on the path and GPS is guiding me well". For some reasons, people tend to prefer having a walk in a forest rather than in z wasteland. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jitl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For you, perhaps. I've never been able to get into lisp style sexpr syntax languages :'( | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | cmoski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Massive fail. I dread having to move code around my F# codebase. | |
| ▲ | pasquinelli 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | why do you think it was a bad choice? | | |
| ▲ | ginko 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It‘s a source of problems with mismatched tabs/spaces being used for indentation between team members for fairly little upside.
Imo it also makes moving blocks of code more cumbersome. | | |
| ▲ | miffi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Shrubbery, Rhombus's first-pass indentation-sensitive syntax, has a syntax form to facilitate copy-paste. With guillemets, « and », you can make a section of Shrubbery code indentation-insensitive. The idea for copy-paste it to "armor" the section you want to copy with guillemets in the right places, and unarmoring it after posting. This needs editor support to do fluidly, but imo it's much better than trying to copy-paste the indentation-sensitive syntax. The Guillemets syntax is described here: <https://docs.racket-lang.org/shrubbery/group-and-block.html#...> I can't tell from my 5 minutes of poking DrRacket whether it supports this "armoring", I've been writing Shrubbery in nvim, which, unsurprisingly, does not support it. |
|
|
|
