[flagged]
So? Normal people aren’t computing enthusiasts, so...
> Are lisp-like language designers aware of that?
No, lisp-like language designers have never hears the parenphobes that jump into every discussion of lisp-like languages to make their feelings known.
Also, no one involved in Python, YAML, etc., has ever heard anyone complain about indent-sensitive syntax.
> You are throwing away sizeable portion of the possible user base.
Parenphobes are throwing away a sizable portion of their potential toolkit. If they are okay with that, I am sure lisp-like language designers (especially the ones doing it as a labor of love and not getting paid for it) can live with losing the neediest, most entitled segment of their “potential user base”.
even many (most?) computing enthusiasts aren’t into lisp. I am. Since this language is lisp-y but not deeply lisp, you’re now finding that not only are anti-lispers put off, but also lispers.
are there any other languages that support for example lisp-like interactive REPL, eg analyzing program state while it is running?
Conveniently analysing program state while it's running is more a feature of languages that run in an image than something lisplikes have in common, like Common Lisp, Factor and Pharo, but not Racket or Guile.
There's atoms, and lists, and at the highest level of a program, the head of the list is the thing to be invoked (function, macro, special form) and the tail is a list of args. At lower levels, the higher level context says what a list means, but either a list itself or the same head/tail interpretation are the main things.
And there are some quoting constructs that control if things are bare atoms or references to the values of names, etc., and that's about it. Lisp has very little syntax. I mean, unless your main language is raw assembler or some esoteric toy like brainfuck, lisp almost certainly has much less syntax.
> are there any other languages that support for example lisp-like interactive REPL, eg analyzing program state while it is running?
Erlang.
Ruby (via Pry).
Lots of others.
Umm, do you know any language with simpler syntax than Lisp has?
For me, the main problem with Lisp is that there's so many Lisps. I think I philosophically prefer Scheme over Common Lisp, but then again there are so many Schemes to choose from!
Are metal bands aware of that? They are throwing away a sizeable portion of fans and record sales.
--
I'm not sure you're acting in good faith when you say normal people hate Lisp, thus it's only weirdos that use it. There is no constructive discussion to be had here.
Have you considered that this is perhaps not a problem with lisp? Normal people do not much like writing computer programs at all.
I don't end to find myself -writing- lisp very often but in a lot of cases I end up -thinking- in lisp and then translating across to whatever language I'm implementing in before I start typing.
Here, a weirdly misplaced smiley back at you :-)
It's kinda like M-expressions, a "normal" syntax gets proposed, but Lisp hackers prefer S-expressions, so the new syntax just kind of founders.
Only worse languages win, because people are masochochists, but throwing away this possible user base is always a win.
Normal people prefer REBOL, but timing and licensing choices...
> throwing away this possible user base is always a win.
Ok, then.
That is something very similar they may had in high school.
I always thought math notation was atrocious to the point of discouraging me from the subject. Who knows, had mathematics used saner (simpler, consistent, perhaps slightly more verbose) notation, I might've been better at it.
If mathematics notation were as terrible, horrible ad you say, wouldn’t mathematicians have changed it by now?
For example, we can't write $e^{-\frac{x}{2}}$ because the minus and the bar of the fraction may not be clearly separated. Also x and 2 will be too small. A solution is to use \dfrac to make them bigger, but the 2D structure of the formula will make the e and 2 be too close and confusing. After some year of trying, one of my coworkers insisted in using $e^{-x/2}$ that is ugly but copy-machine-poof.
We also need huge integrals for $\int_0^7\dfrac{1}{1+x^2}\ dx$. The standard one is too small. I tried to write a macro for that, but the 0 and the 7 must be in weird positions. Also, there are too many cases, because the limits may be missing. Finally, we are using https://ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/bigints with some tiny macro to rename it to \lint because I don't like the names the author used.
The math notation is very good to write in dead tree paper with a pencil in 2D, but in 1D with a keyboard or automatic processing is horrible.
Let me disagree! The type is always one, Number (not Int or Float).