Just because Lisp looks foreign doesn't mean that it's harder. The syntax is different, but it is also very simple. If this were untrue, Scheme wouldn't have survived as a teaching language all these years.
How To Design Programs for those interested in picking up Scheme: http://htdp.org/
But is it?
++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.I'm learning and enjoying clojure, though!
(format t "~{~@(~A~)~^ ~}, because ~{~A~^ ~} is easier!" llthw (cddr llthw))printf("something %s then %d finally %f!", "asd", 1, 1.2)
As mentioned, there is a loop built into format. Since lisp also has a (list) function eg: (list 'a 'b 'c 1) I still don't see an argument beyond familiarity with the C style printf syntax for why format is bad/unreadable.
So there's a lot more power here than in 'printf' control strings. If you find the more exotic notation unintuitive -- and you certainly wouldn't be alone -- you don't have to use it.
Lisp as an idea has a simple syntax but Common Lisp isn't even close to that platonic ideal.
The thing with imperative programming is that you don't really need to know the language to at least get an idea of what's happening.
Lisp is so dense that while you can pack an unbelievable amount of programming into a small chunk, approaching it as a beginner is daunting. There isn't a really good way to 'build' on an algorithm and learning it is significantly harder than learning C# or Java or even better yet, Python.
It's like saying, 'Linux is easy to learn! You can do so much in so few characters! It's so powerful! And look, robust manual pages for all!'
Yeah, that's true, but handing a user some pipes and greps isn't going to explain what the hell they actually do or better yet, how to leverage that into something useful. It's just going to look like greek to anyone who sees it and a huge effort has to be made to get to the point where you can even begin to understand what's happening.
Imperative programming doesn't ask you of much. 'Here is a class. Here is the main method. Write some stuff in here. Here are some basic methods in the default libraries and their expected inputs. It's going to execute line by line. Go nuts.'
And that's really the difference here. Lisp asks a lot of the user up front. Python doesn't. C# doesn't. Fuck, Python is so loose that you don't even really need to know what any of the structure is to start writing something that kicks back some output. Yeah, as a group that understands Lisp and Scheme and Haskell and F#, it's really easy to say, 'Lisp isn't THAT hard', but that's bullshit. Lisp IS that hard. Lisp is a very difficult language to pickup when you are starting at square one and it's only marginally easier if your background is purely imperative languages. Misrepresenting that is a bold-faced lie.
Take any LALR(1) defined programming language. Now write it in one line without indentation. How easy is it to parse (for you, human)? We rely on other clues to grok languages, like indentation. You cannot really "cheat" in parsing; if the machine requires a 600 state transition graph with a push-down stack, that translates into difficulty for you, also.
Lisp is obviously parseable by humans; there are people who easily write and maintain large, complex Lisp programs.
First, I don't want to have to turn myself into an LALR parser to read some code.
> What is hard for the machine is hard for you also.
But what's easy for the machine may well not be easy for the human. LZW isn't very hard for a computer, but good luck reading it.
Syntaxes that may be equivalent to the computer may well not be for the human. Yes, a human can train itself to read that stuff, but if the language designer made more humane choices, the language would be easier for the humans.
Note that this does not directly address how hard it is for humans to read Lisp. It merely addresses the parent's comments.
Humans do not count parentheses and keep track of nesting levels when reading Lisp, any more than they go through LALR(1) state transitions when reading C++.
We structure the code in 2D, and use visual cheats.
With Lisp, there is no clear distinction between "language" and "library".
In any language, code is hard to understand when it uses a lot of external symbols from a library.
No matter how well you understand C, if I suddenly give you a tarball of the USB subsystem of a kernel you've never worked with, and open a random file, it will look like gobbledygook, even though you "understand" the declarations at the "language level".
Most operators in Lisp code are essentially library symbols; and if you're missing some key symbol (such as the outermost one), you might not be able to understand it at all.
Lisp readability requires not only nice code structure, but a decent working vocabulary: enough vocabulary that you're not tripped up by the standard things that are in the language, and you know what is in the language and what is defined by the program.
For instance if you see some (macrolet ...) form and you have no idea what that means, you may be stuck. What is macrolet? Did the program define that somewhere? An experienced lisper doesn't bat an eyelash. Of course she knows what macrolet is: it's a binding construct for making lexically scoped macros, doesn't everyone?
(But at least you know from the unambiguous syntax and formatting clues what goes with what: what parts of the whole thing are arguments to that macrolet, and which are outside that macrolet! So when you look up macrolet in the reference manual, you know exactly what is being passed to it and can figure it out without any undue difficulties.)
Completely and utterly false. Lisp's s-expression syntax is trivial to parse because it is so regular.
The thing with imperative programming
Common Lisp is multi-paradigm, as mentioned in the site's FAQ. You can write imperative code all you want.
For example, IME delving into the codebase of hunchentoot was way easier than django's.
Because I've done more Python working, reading Django's source is much easier for me than most Clojure code (even my own), but that's not to say the same for everyone else.
These are after all languages (even if they are artificial). The human brain is really good at understanding a wide variety of linguistic constructs, the main issue is familiarity and that changes from person to person.
From what I understand the hardest thing to teach new programmers coming to Java or Javascript or even Python is assignment and mutability. That has a huge cognitive overhead.
Contrast that with the lambda-form structure and substitution method of evaluating expressions in Lisp.
(function arg1 arg2...)
You color your argument with a preference for imperative programming by over-simplifying Java; arguably one of the more difficult languages to teach beginners. The venerable, "Hello, world!" exercise is an illustrative example.
Again contrast that with:
(format t "Hello, world!")
> Python doesn't. C# doesn't. Fuck, Python is so loose that you don't even really need to know what any of the structure is to start writing something that kicks back some output.
again, not unlike lisp.
> Lisp isn't THAT hard', but that's bullshit. Lisp IS that hard
Care to back up that claim? AFAIR The SCIP barely spends a page explaining the semantics. The CONCEPTS in teaches are hard(er) but they are not lisp. In fact one of the reasons the SICP was written in Scheme is so that you _don't_ have to waste half a semester teaching the language before you can get to the fun, important, useful stuff. The little schemer doesn't spend much time teaching lisp either.