This argument is based on too shallow an analysis and doesn't stand up to closer...

JBiserkov · on Feb 19, 2012

New lines in the Lisp, PLEASE :)

I see you omitted some parenthesis in the "conventional" expression, relying on the fact that multiplication takes priority over substraction. Making this fact explicit is exactly what makes Lisp better, especially for more complex domains: delegating priorities to the notation, freeing brain capacity for the actual problem.

_19qg · on Feb 19, 2012

If math is a problem for the user, there is the option to use a modified parser. For example using an infix parser called by a readmacro:

    (defun foo (a b c)
      #I( 

          (-b + sqrt(b*b - 4*a*c)) / (2*a)

        ))

    CL-USER 8 > (foo 1 2 3)
    #C(-1.0 1.4142135)

Confusion · on Feb 19, 2012

Sure, there are solutions and it's awesome that they're both possible and easy to use. I'm not arguing against Lisp; I just don't agree that its syntax is better. I agree it is not worse, if you survey a sufficiently large variety of cases.

It may be bikeshedding, but I would not let 'blue is better than red, because the sky is blue' pass either.

wicket232 · on Feb 20, 2012

Once you add indentation, and know the simple rule that args line up vertically (unless they're so short that you'd rather leave them), the following is pretty easy to read:

    (/ (+ (- b)
          (sqrt (- (* b b)
                   (* 4 a c))))
       (* 2 a))

It tells me:

* there's a quotient of 2 things

* the first thing is a sum of -b and a sqrt

* the second thing is a product

and so on. Pretty nice. Of course, mathematical notation is more terse.