Curly-infix and readable Lisp
Posted Dec 4, 2012 15:34 UTC (Tue) by dakas
In reply to: Curly-infix and readable Lisp
Parent article: GNU Guile 2.0.7 released
The infix syntax would have mitigated the problem somewhat.
I doubt it. It is like imagining that a unidirectional word-by-word translator will enable you to write poetry in a language you don't know. You'll probably learn more about its grammar's dark corners than you ever wanted to know when trying to navigate by error messages.
Driving through a superficial mechanical remapping layer will make things more rather than less baffling: the familiarity you hope for is not more than a front, and understanding just when this front does what you expect, and when it fails for what reason for what purposes, will require a deeper understanding than just writing in Scheme in the first place would.
And you'll have a harder time communicating with others.
Already trivial things like using totally different formatting and placement of parens cause code to become less readable to coworkers, and worse to manage for simple text-based replacements. An infix layer is not going to help, in particular since it does not really have a corresponding print form, so all output and all intermediate forms will look unfamiliar.
Don't get me wrong: it is great that you can do this sort of transformation game in Scheme, and it is a nice exercise and proof of concept. But I don't consider it of practical relevance. It will be a project a number of people will enjoy and improve, but it will get used for very little "serious work" (TM), basically by almost nobody from the purported target clientele of people feeling unable to get their head wrapped around prefix syntax, and will eventually peter out.
to post comments)