The syntax argument is such a tired argument. With LISPy language there is almost zero syntax, it's pretty much executable AST.
Because of this, formatting matters a lot, but I don't think that's too different than other languages.
If you think LISP is hard to read, you are someone who could most benefit from branching out to a non-Algol lineage language.
Also, the little syntax present is pretty much timeless. Learn once and its yours for the next 50 years.
To be pedantic, this isn't quite correct. Syntax isn't countable like that. What S-expressions are light on is production rules. At their most basic they have IIRC 7 production rules but there are absolutely 0 languages based on s-expressions which are that simple, since it doesn't give you anything like quasiquotes, vectors, Lisp 2 function resolution, etc. Reader macros make matters much worse.
What we can say is that they are constructively simple, but not particularly unique in that. Once you get into real sexpr languages they aren't simpler than horn clauses, and are constructively more complex than languages like Brainfuck and Forth.
It's repeated a lot because it's true. The collective developer world has decided that LISP syntax is not the preference. Good if you prefer it, but you're the in the overwhelming minority.
Random example i just found via github explore: https://github.com/replikativ/datahike/blob/main/src/datahik...
You probably love it but to me it looks like a wall of text. Sure I can figure out what it does, but it gives me a headache.
To use the right words: it’s not a syntax issue, it just looks unfamiliar to you.
The meta-programming power of Lisp may be largely due to being homoiconic, although Dylan/Julia etc achieve similar without it. However Lisp's minimal syntax is not a prerequisite for homoiconicity: S-Plus/R has a more conventional syntax while retaining "code is a list" representation.
(if (< a b)
(let [x (long-function-name a b)]
(another-long-function (+ x c)))
(+ a b))
if a < b {
let x = long_function_name(a, b);
another_long_function(x + c)
} else {
a + b
}
You are right about that.
I value "minimal and simple" more than "familiar" because it makes my growth trajectory less arbitrary and more about intrinsic properties of the code. I don't care about learning how to do things the same way as everyone else nearly as much as I care about learning how code can be improved generally.
I know that code is written for humans, and that you can't remove the human from the equation. But I'm more interested in the future of code than in present-day code culture.
> to me
> theres a reason why pseudocode in every textbook looks like that
The reason is history, inertia, and limited exposure. Preference is self-reinforcing for those reasons. That doesn't make it better, or irreversible.
Comparison with sledding is apt here, because both methods let you achieve the same goal - going down to the base of the mountain. Of course, skiing is more difficult to start with, it's more expensive, it requires deliberate effort and dedication. But the practical, learned experience far exceeds initial expectations. Do you realize how ridiculous it looks when inexperienced people try to convince them it's not worth it? Well, you may say, "the point is not to convince 'them', but to show the wider public..." And that's even more imbecilic. Imagine trying to point at people zigzagging 70 miles down from the peak, having enormous fun and telling the observers not to even try that? I'd dare anyone to argue with an experienced skier that sledding is more fun.
> theres a reason why pseudocode in every textbook looks like that.
Like I said, most - the absolute majority of Clojure programmers come to it after many years of programming in other languages (see the surveys). They are using it as a real instrument to achieve real goals, to solve practical problems. It's not an educational tool, not a "hello world app" incubator, not a "good for the resume" kind of a thing for them. If you (not you personally, but some proverbial programmer) are arguing just for the sake of it, well, with all respect, then "fuck you" (for wasting people's time). If you're sincerely trying to make a choice - nobody can "make a skier" out of you - that is something you must do on your own. No theory, no books, no videos can ever convey to you the enormous joy you may get out of it later - there's too much nontransferable tacit knowledge there. Just keep in mind, people in this community didn't make the choice because "their brains are wired differently" or something, not because "they are oblivious", no. Unlike you - they have seen, walked and lived through both of these worlds. Most of them have to switch between them, sometimes multiple times a day. And yes, the wider majority can often be wrong. In fact, history shows us that it makes wrong choices all the time. Lispers don't care about popular choices - they prioritize pragmatism above all.
To this day I have to look up whenever I get back into clojure what the "syntax" is of ns, require, import, etc.
but i bet if you sat down a junior developer not yet entrenched in any style yet, they'd be able to grok lisp code MUCH faster than the intricacies of syntax of the other alternatives ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Javascript's destructuring syntax can look almost indecipherable, and it is mostly because the language syntax is not uniform in its meaning.
const f = ({a: {b: [x, , z] = [], c: {d: w} = {}} = {}, e: [, y] = []} = {}) => ({x, y, z, w});
People also put themselves into bubbles. Once in, they can filter out other languages (with all kinds of excuses), and be overly focused on certain families or only specific languages.