On: Ask HN: Can someone explain to me why all languages don't try to have the same syntax?

[notyouravgjoel]

My theory: people who don't like s-expressions don't get programming;

Thus, everyone who gets programming and is exposed to lisp becomes a lisp programmer,

and people who suck at programming are left out.

[inklesspen → notyouravgjoel]

I know many people who are counterexamples to your theory. Languages like Perl and Python have a strong advantage in libraries. If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it.

[pg → inklesspen]

If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it.

True. But the Lisp programmer would reply that you need the things only Lisp can do in most non-trivial programs.

[gruseom → inklesspen]

I think the parent comment was probably trolling, but as someone who loves Lisp I have to say that some people have deeper reasons for not liking it than "libraries". A few of the best programmers I know just don't like Lisp. They tell me s-expressions don't fit the way their brains work. I'm not inclined to dismiss this as laziness, stupidity, or ignorance - though it's tempting :)

If you don't need the things that only Lisp can do, there's not as much of a reason to use it.

This is not an unreasonable thing to say, yet I'm skeptical. The problem is that a lot of the things that are natural to do in language X just wouldn't occur to you in language Y. I think this is a big problem with the way people compare programming languages. I've been meaning to write a post about it sometime.

[coryrc → inklesspen]

The (derisive) saying used to be "You can write FORTRAN in any language" but you can also write Lisp in any language.

Not that I completely agree with the GP's point.

[gruseom → coryrc]

you can also write Lisp in any language

No you can't. In fact, that's precisely what you can't do.

(Unless you're talking about writing a Lisp interpreter... but then your Lisp programs themselves would still be written in Lisp.)

[rsheridan6 → notyouravgjoel]

I'm a big fan of Lisp, but this is definitely not true. Do you think the CMUCL (a popular Common Lisp application) team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming? Or the functional programming community in general? Some of the members of that community who are of a certain age would have cut their teeth on Lisp, but they ended up designing/using *ML and Haskell. Or how about Alexander Stepanov, who went from Scheme to C++ and designed the STL? Or Guy Steele, who invented Scheme but went on to help design Java and Fortress? These are not stupid people.

[pg → rsheridan6]

Do you think the CMUCL team who went on to make non-sexp based Dylan are just people who suck at programming?

No, but close. They were designing a language for other people who did. The original intention with Dylan was to create a Lisp that was made more accessible for mainstream programmers.

Ditto Guy Steele on Java: "we were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp."

[rsheridan6 → pg]

I didn't get to this in a timely manner due to a Christmas vacation, but I'll bite anyway.

I didn't know that Dylan was considered a LFM rather than a LFSP by its creators, but I do know that at least of them gets s-expressions and still thinks they're a bad idea. See Dave Moon's suggestion: http://www.archub.org/arcsug.txt

[nomoresecrets → notyouravgjoel]

I suspect that this is your hypothesis, rather than your theory.