1

So since as programmers languages are nothing but notation why do we even bother, and why not just make lisp a unified notation for all programs?

Comments
  • 2
    Same reason we have different fields of mathematics.
  • 13
    Username checks out
  • 2
    Cause tower of babel rule
  • 1
    Why should it be exactly lisp?
  • 3
    Because LISP has failed, and that's because people just don't like to wade through the chaotic soup of tuples that idiomatic LISP promotes.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested Even mathematicians agreed on the unified notations

    @vane Personel preference : Tower of babbel seems like a mess

    @iiii Cuz I read SICP once 😛. I mean take any but just unify it.

    @Fast-Nop yeah let's not do lisp but any other but let's just get outta all the clusterfuck of languages
  • 2
    @Catastrophe
    Lol. Yes, because | x | absolutely means the same thing in the numerous disciplines it appears in...
  • 0
    @SortOfTested what ? Does it like not mean the same thing ? As far as I know it means magnitude of f(x) be it function from any discipline

    Maybe stats use it differently IDK.

    My point is at least it is discipline wise different. I don't see a point in having multiple languages for a single discipline.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe well even discrete wathematics work a bit different depending on the language. The code "True and 'str'" would be executed differently in PHP(with right syntax) and Python
  • 0
    @dhvcc Yes but why or what are the advantages of it ? I see many people swear by both the languages for server stuff whichever works better but just make it same notation maybe change the runtime but for gods sake keep the notations same just agree on same paradigm.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe a lot of business involved in here, let's not forget
    Some languages are controlled by corps
    Our world isn't perfect nor it would be if we agreed on the same notation
    Seems like a pretty hard and unnecessary thing to do 🤔
  • 0
    @dhvcc I'm not saying necessarily corporate is a bad thing what I'm saying is we as programming community have to take back control of the syntax.

    Your shiny new languages are still 50 years old no new thing can be 50 years old that's a problem there.

    And don't tell me going through multiple languages you never thought these only differ in implementations. Hence the whole need for unified notation. Implement all the stuff different all you want just keep the syntax same.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe C Lang uses ., - > and other stuff for speed. Compiler does not need to know a lot of context to understand what it is used for
    On the other hand there are "more human readable" langs like Python where you use and, if for various things

    Funny thing is that Python is built with C, but their philosophy is so much different
  • 0
    @Catastrophe even mathematicians do not really agree. Even such easy task as writing real numbers consistently is a puzzle: some use comma for separating the integer part; some use a period, but some also use commas for separating every group of three digits in the integer part. There is sort of unified notation but only for papers.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe it's like using only yaml or only json
  • 0
    @dhvcc I'll tell you something funnier the indented scopes are funny.
    Why do we even need them as the curly braces are pretty good too ?
    And since it does not need context what are you designing all the syntaxes for just use the same thing which by coincidence looks the same since the dawn of high level languages.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe the indent looks cleaner when braces allow you to not worry about code being compressed by uglifier or minimizer
  • 0
    @iiii yeah so I think IEEE does that for papers. I don't get why they just don't come up with same stuff for programmers too ?

    I would love an RFF document at regular yearly of half yearly basis rather than every language advertising itself as revolutionary.

    The part about maths notations too it might just be country specific so it's still not as fragmented as the thousands of computer languages.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe because every program is not a scientific paper.
  • 0
    @iiii So maybe not IEEE, bad example.

    Internet engineering task force what about those guys, they standardise stuff, why can't we do the same.

    I don't see thousands of implementations of same internet requirement.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe The thing is languages are REALLY different
    Different syntax, different purposes, some of them compiled, some not
    Some go for readability and some not
    Some require using $
    Some work with pointers, so they use *
    You get me?
  • 0
    @dhvcc do you really think I came to my conclusion on first day of my CS class, boy I've used a lot of them and believe me they all are the same but segregated for god knows what reasons.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe I can't agree with you
    Langs work in different contexts so they may require different syntax
    Also we don't really need the same notation that much
    I thinks that's enough
  • 0
    As ya wish
  • 1
    @Catastrophe never heard of IETF existence before.
  • 1
    @Catastrophe It’s impossible based on how our consciousness work. There never will be one standard cause at least 50% of developers have god complex.
    Most of great developers are not normal people.
  • 1
    @iiii Oh there is one.
  • 0
    @vane true. Bjarne is one of those non normal people 😄
  • 1
    I think we need to get our heads out our asses cuz it's destroying the community.

    How ? I'd say if the stress of learning a new language for different purposes wasn't as it is, there would be far less depressed developers. And bad thing now a days it's termed cool to be mentally ill developer. No it's deteriorating your health.
  • 1
    @iiii That mofo at least tried to do shit.
    Agreed he didn't invent shit but he's a doer.
  • 0
    @Catastrophe I really like watching his talks. He's such an adorable and interesting grandpa
  • 0
    So many comments and no relevant XKCD yet?
  • 0
    @hashedram the "15 standards" one? it's implied
  • 3
  • 0
    @SortOfTested thanks. I felt naked without it.
Add Comment