Article View: comp.lang.functional
Article #1158Re: How to improve the readability of (any) LISP or any highlevel functional language to the level of FORTH ?
From: Xah Lee
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:13
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:13
21 lines
2434 bytes
2434 bytes
On Jan 5, 9:59 am, Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 3:58 pm, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The same expression in lisp style you get this > > > /(+(-(b) √(+(^(b 2) -(*(4 a c))))) *(2 a)) > > > is it readable? Many lispers insist that its the most readable syntax. > > And here is why: http://blo.udoidio.info/2008/09/lisp-syntax-is-great.html oops, a typo. Copied the wrong line. The correct form is (/ (+ (- b) (√ (+ (^ b 2) (- (* 4 a c))))) (* 2 a)) article on my blog now http://xahlee.blogspot.com/2011/01/whats-most-readable-computer-language.html Xah
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<66776de6-f59e-4a74-964f-a1ce492039ba@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<80ceeca0-1d32-47d1-ba96-feb4d9729c3a@v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <e37b64b7-61ba-4247-a6cd-e32323c7be15@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <767329f7-d300-4090-93cb-717d70fbadc4@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 107f24,1641de092071599d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,1641de092071599d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 103b8b,1641de092071599d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: fd7c9,1641de092071599d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gid4e63bbc566,gidf85ca024c1,gid39ae015015,gid2832dde05d,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.lisp,gnu.emacs.help,comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: How to improve the readability of (any) LISP or any highlevel functional language to the level of FORTH ? Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:13:26 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 21 Message-ID: <66776de6-f59e-4a74-964f-a1ce492039ba@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com> References: <80ceeca0-1d32-47d1-ba96-feb4d9729c3a@v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <e37b64b7-61ba-4247-a6cd-e32323c7be15@i32g2000pri.googlegroups.com> <767329f7-d300-4090-93cb-717d70fbadc4@i17g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.126.112.84 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1294258406 3405 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2011 20:13:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.126.112.84; posting-account=bRPKjQoAAACxZsR8_VPXCX27T2YcsyMA User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/8.0.552.224 Safari/534.10,gzip(gfe)