Just read that sh*t again:
http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/readable-s-expressions.html
Credentials?:
"I wrote a lot of Lisp code in the late 1980s..."
Anybody got a calendar? That was a while ago, right? Well at least it
was the /late/ 1880s. Oh, wait...
"... on a $120,000 system."
Oh, God, I'm sorry. I take it back. You da man, David! $120k in the late
1880s was like $12m now. Damn. That sucker musta had a gig of RAM!
Ok, so here we are sitting at the feet of a guy who was not written Lisp
in going on twenty years (so we know he is a big fan). Now here is our
guru's entire premise:
"But I am never the only one who reads my programs -- I need to make
sure others can read my programs too. Here�s the problem: for most
software developers, programs written solely using s-expressions are
hard to read..."
So... I am superhuman? That keeps coming up on c.l.l. Oh, wait....
"Experienced Lisp programmers eventually stop seeing the parentheses,
and see the structure of a program instead as suggested by indentation."
Oh. What happened to "programs written solely using s-expressions are
hard to read"?
Blowhards like Wheeler are making so much noise they cannot even hear
what they are saying: "Programs written in X are hard to read for people
who do not know X."
Neil, I can see why you thought comp.lang.lisp would be receptive to
this breakthrough. Not.
:)
kt
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Just read that sh*t again:
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/readable-s-expressions.html
>
> Credentials?:
>
> "I wrote a lot of Lisp code in the late 1980s..."
>
> Anybody got a calendar? That was a while ago, right? Well at least it
> was the /late/ 1880s. Oh, wait...
>
He said 1980. You got it wrong by a century.
If he really program in the 1880's I would be interested in his life
span than his job. :-)
> "... on a $120,000 system."
>
> Oh, God, I'm sorry. I take it back. You da man, David! $120k in the late
> 1880s was like $12m now. Damn. That sucker musta had a gig of RAM!
>
Google for historical price of computer.
[http://staging.computerhistory.org/timeline/timeline.php?timeline_category=cmptr]
in 1950s UNIVAC was sold for 1 million each.
[http://pt.withy.org/publications/LispM.html] seems to suggest that
Lisp Machine during 1986 was sold around 150,000.
Why try so hard to misread what he wrote. Couldn't you instantly notice
yourself typing 1880 a couple times, or do you actually believe someone
was alive 120 years before?
He might be considered trolling in the contents of his article.
But regarding what he said he did, I saw no reason not to believe that
he was telling the truth.
...
Or are you trying to be funny or something? Because I don't get the
joke of trying to put word into somebody's mouth.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Just read that sh*t again:
>
> http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/readable-s-expressions.html
>
> Credentials?:
>
> "I wrote a lot of Lisp code in the late 1980s..."
>
> Anybody got a calendar? That was a while ago, right? Well at least it
> was the /late/ 1880s. Oh, wait...
>
> "... on a $120,000 system."
>
> Oh, God, I'm sorry. I take it back. You da man, David! $120k in the late
> 1880s was like $12m now. Damn. That sucker musta had a gig of RAM!
>
> Ok, so here we are sitting at the feet of a guy who was not written Lisp
> in going on twenty years (so we know he is a big fan). Now here is our
> guru's entire premise:
>
> "But I am never the only one who reads my programs -- I need to make
> sure others can read my programs too. Here�s the problem: for most
> software developers, programs written solely using s-expressions are
> hard to read..."
>
> So... I am superhuman? That keeps coming up on c.l.l. Oh, wait....
>
> "Experienced Lisp programmers eventually stop seeing the parentheses,
> and see the structure of a program instead as suggested by indentation."
>
> Oh. What happened to "programs written solely using s-expressions are
> hard to read"?
>
> Blowhards like Wheeler are making so much noise they cannot even hear
> what they are saying: "Programs written in X are hard to read for people
> who do not know X."
I think it has been clear for some time now what you are trying to get at.
The surprise is that a majority of people indeed think that "programs
written in _some_ X are _not_ hard to read for people who do not know
those X." A currently popular example is Python. In general, it is
believed that infix notation is easier to understand than prefix (or
postfix) because it resembles usual mathematical notations.
It takes a while to get it that this is all just because of familiarity.
At least it has taken me a while, and I guess there are others who are
not that different.
Maybe you haven't made that experience yourself. Consider yourself lucky
then. ;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: toronto, get your ass back in here!
Date:
Message-ID: <OqsSg.2$9q2.0@newsfe12.lga>
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> Just read that sh*t again:
>>
>> http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/readable-s-expressions.html
>>
>> Credentials?:
>>
>> "I wrote a lot of Lisp code in the late 1980s..."
>>
>> Anybody got a calendar? That was a while ago, right? Well at least it
>> was the /late/ 1880s. Oh, wait...
>>
>> "... on a $120,000 system."
>>
>> Oh, God, I'm sorry. I take it back. You da man, David! $120k in the
>> late 1880s was like $12m now. Damn. That sucker musta had a gig of RAM!
>>
>> Ok, so here we are sitting at the feet of a guy who was not written
>> Lisp in going on twenty years (so we know he is a big fan). Now here
>> is our guru's entire premise:
>>
>> "But I am never the only one who reads my programs -- I need to
>> make sure others can read my programs too. Here�s the problem: for
>> most software developers, programs written solely using s-expressions
>> are hard to read..."
>>
>> So... I am superhuman? That keeps coming up on c.l.l. Oh, wait....
>>
>> "Experienced Lisp programmers eventually stop seeing the parentheses,
>> and see the structure of a program instead as suggested by indentation."
>>
>> Oh. What happened to "programs written solely using s-expressions are
>> hard to read"?
>>
>> Blowhards like Wheeler are making so much noise they cannot even hear
>> what they are saying: "Programs written in X are hard to read for
>> people who do not know X."
>
>
> I think it has been clear for some time now what you are trying to get at.
Really? I only saw how really stupid Wheeler/Toronto were just before
posting. My guess is not many of you even bothered to read Wheeler, you
closed-minded, reactionary savages, you!
>
> The surprise is that a majority of people indeed think that "programs
> written in _some_ X are _not_ hard to read for people who do not know
> those X."
COBOL? So if we elim the parens I can give my code to a Java monkey and
they will be able to read it? PWUAUAUAAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAA...
Not even I can read my code. Besides, the reason I could not read the
Python [oops, that is below] (and I had done Python for an intense few
weeks a few years back doing my own abortive PyCells) was not because I
was blinded by the whitespace. <sigh>
But thanks for your clarification of Wheeler/Toronto, it is even daffier
than the original premise.
> A currently popular example is Python.
Yes, well I punted on a PyCells question initially because I could not
make head nor tail of the code, and it was /my/ Lisp code ported as
literally as possible to Python.
Nice try, tho.
> In general, it is
> believed that infix notation is easier to understand than prefix (or
> postfix) because it resembles usual mathematical notations.
They are wrong. It is easier because math notation is pretty good
shorthand leveraging mathematical precedence, order of operations,
implicit operations, even visual programming (exponents, subscripts,
ratios).
With the notable exception of LOOP, Lisp made a different bet, on
regularity over shorthand.
>
> It takes a while to get it that this is all just because of familiarity.
> At least it has taken me a while, and I guess there are others who are
> not that different.
Actually, you completely missed what I was getting at. Wheeeler knows
Lisp is readable to a Lispnik. He knows the parens become invisible. The
howler is that he thinks a Java monkey should be able to read Lisp as if
it were the Sunday comics. No, it should not. In fact, no one can read
any code (including the COBOL expert author of their own COBOL code)
like the Sunday comics.
>
> Maybe you haven't made that experience yourself.
Uhhh, what experience? Being put off by something only to like it once I
got familiar with it? When I switched from MCL to ACL I /hated/ the ACL
IDE. But I assumed it was just a question of familiarity and decided to
give it a month. Rest is history. Probably the example of strong
programmer editor preference tipped me off. Does that make me a genius?
> Consider yourself lucky
> then. ;)
Two seconds ago I was a genius! And what happened to superhuman? Damn.
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: toronto, get your ass back in here!
Date:
Message-ID: <877izh5lcz.fsf@nyct.net>
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> They are wrong. It is easier because math notation is pretty good
> shorthand leveraging mathematical precedence, order of operations,
> implicit operations, even visual programming (exponents, subscripts,
> ratios).
And after all that's said and done, we have to figure out whether the
subscripts and superscripts are there because we're dealing with
tensors, exponentiation, function inversion, array indexing, ....
Yeah, it's REALLY clear to someone who doesn't know math. :)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
On 2006-10-03, Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's REALLY clear to someone who doesn't know math. :)
Math is easy to read after you learn to read math, the same can be said
about acient greek or financial documents or contracts.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
From: Rahul Jain
Subject: Re: toronto, get your ass back in here!
Date:
Message-ID: <87ac4d11vn.fsf@nyct.net>
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> On 2006-10-03, Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, it's REALLY clear to someone who doesn't know math. :)
>
> Math is easy to read after you learn to read math, the same can be said
> about acient greek or financial documents or contracts.
Ah, yes, I should have figured you'd chime in when we stopped discussing
programming. ;)
But I was born knowing how to read Math and Lisp.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> In general, it is believed that infix notation is easier to
> understand than prefix
This one always puzzles me. Prefix notation is my favorite part of
Lisp. I use C++ and C# (ugh) at work, and every time I encounter code
that relies on the order of operations, I want to go strangle the
author. Instead I paranthesize the code so that I don't have to stop
and think about how to translate what I'm reading the next time
through.
Every time I read or write python I have to spend half a day getting my
head back into it. That language just doesn't stick with me.
I liked Ruby for a while, but I stopped using that because I can't deal
with a linefeed being the end of a statement. I sounded like Arc may
do that too. It's white space. I hate it when languages look at
things that I can't see. I know, most editors will display those
characters now. Still. The idea of the thing.
-Ben
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> believed that infix notation is easier to understand than prefix (or
> postfix) because it resembles usual mathematical notations.
One of the oddest things about this is that most people (and in
particular, most programmers) don't know jack about mathematics and
are typically "mathphobic". Yet, there they are saying that algolish
stuff is "more readable". Go figure.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com