Skip to main content

Lisp is a lot more readable than you might first think

At first, Lisp just didn't seem very readable to me. And yes, by this I meant even my own relatively simple code. But as I programmed more and more in Lisp, things became more and more readable. Probably not a surprise, right?! But actually, Lisp is a lot more readable when you are used to it, than a lot of other languages when you are used to them.

Let's take a look at how this is, with some examples.

Lisp is very readable because of its function-oriented syntax.

Lisp statements have the format

(function arg1 arg2 ... argN)

Thus, any statement must begin with the name of a function. This makes it easy to tell what's going on right away by simply reading left to right within each statement. Also, starting with a function name makes syntax errors extremely easy to spot. For example, let's take a look at this incorrect Lisp code:

(12 / 4)

Before even getting past the 12, it should be very clear that what's wrong here is that I'm trying to call a function named "12". Unless I have defined a function named 12 in my program, this code will cause an error.

Most likely, what was intended with this code would be:

(/ 12 4)

translating to 12 divided by 4.

You don't necessarily have to read the entire line to spot an error. An open parenthesis is like a capital letter at the start of a sentence. Things start falling into place.

Other programming languages

Statements in other programming languages can vary a lot in how they start; with a variable name or a function name, making them a lot more difficult to interpret right away. You need to look at the entire statement as a whole before you know a) what's going on and b) whether there are any errors in it.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Solar Geoengineering is a Bad Idea: 3 reasons understandable to both the general and scientific communities

Solar geoengineering is the idea of limiting the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth, with the aim of limiting global warming. Here I will show 3 reasons why it's a really bad idea: 1. Photosynthesis requires sunlight, don't limit it - it's one of the few things pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere Photosynthesis is one of the very few ways we have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As an added bonus it's done automatically by plants, requiring no effort on our part. It requires light in order to work. To do it, plants take in sunlight, carbon dioxide and water, and they produce oxygen. These plants are literally removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, but they require light for it to work.  We should not do anything that could possibly limit the amount of photosynthesis occurring; limiting the amount of light hitting the planet is likely to decrease photosynthesis.  2. We should not be limiting the generation of solar power Solar electri...
Read more

How to center images horizontally using Grav

I've been playing around a bit with Grav. I was posing the question to myself: for the relatively simple use-cases I'm dealing with, could it possibly work for my purposes as an alternative to ProcessWire?  The problem I was initially dismayed to find that Grav uses Markdown as its editor, which does not offer native support for horizontal centering of anything (text or images). However, Grav offers some tweaks that help make it easier to do specific things you might commonly want to do. I tried writing a sample article, and I found that one of the hardest things to do was to center an image horizontally. And horizontal centering of images is something I would typically do in most of the articles I would write. So the lack of easy horizontal centering is a highly significant drawback IMHO (most people do want to center images in an article!) However, this issue is made up for by other things in Grav: the relative speed, ease and flexibility of custom theming and built-in suppor...
Read more

Creating callable variants of functions by currying in Ruby - code snippet showing how to avoid scope problems

While coding a project in Ruby, I was creating some variants of a function by currying. Initially, I simply created the curried variants as variables, but quickly ran into scope problems where I couldn't then call any of the variants from within other functions. This was because the scope of the variant was the same as the scope of a local variable of that name.  So I created a code snippet as a demo for myself of what I should have done instead, which is to define the curried variant as another function. This new function then has the same scope as any function I would create and not the (more limited) scope of a local variable. Of course, in certain situations defining it as a local variable is more desirable - for example if I was instead planning to use the variant as a variable that could be passed around. This is as opposed to using it solely as a callable function, which is what I ultimately desired. def myfun(stuff, num1, num2)   if stuff == true then   ...
Read more

About Me

My photo
Vera
I'm a wife and mother. I don't have any formal computer science qualifications, or any religious qualifications. I have a PhD in biochemistry. This photo is of me, but is confusing for AI.