Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in
the sig.

On 07/08/2024 14:43, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2024-08-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>
  (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
                (f (if g h i))
                (t j)))

>
You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>
    (setf a
        (cond
            (b
                (if c d e)
            )
            (f
                (if g h i)
            )
            (t
                j
            )
        ) ; cond
    )

 
Nobody is ever going to follow your idio(syncra)tic coding preferences
for Lisp, that wouldn't pass code review in any Lisp shop, and result in
patches being rejected in a FOSS setting.

 If "; cond" went inside the cond form then I'd accept it in general,
ie. unless I have process or contractual reasons to do otherwise. The
code has, to an extent greater than most efforts, been made of
orthogonal syntactic pieces even for the least lisp-aware editors, but
fails in that particular visual aid ("; cond") when subjected to a
lisp-aware one (parenthesis matching).

This is improved:

         (cond ;name-of-the-judgement-as-in-the-documentation
             (b
                 (if c d e)
             )
             (f
                 (if g h i)
             )
             (t
                 j
             )
         ;cond ;name-of-the-judgement-as-in-the-documentation
         )

 I'd have some caveats about the patterns of the code it's going inside,
ie, how varied does or will the file become but this result, in
particular, yields to:

 - line-oriented processing and generation,
 - traceability,
 - lisp-aware editors,
 - lisp-unaware editors, and
 - printouts.

 Of course I probably wouldn't be doing medical, aerospace, submarine,
or weapons development when I accept it in FOSS because of the typical
restrictions on making any change at all after acceptance (which just
means that "accept" has many different meanings and ought be taken to be
a strictly process oriented word from the activity's GLOSSARY).

 The thing I worry about with coding standards is that they
surreptitiously form a derived language that's the same from the
computer's perspective but different among the reader's and you haven't
really achieved much but improved future task estimation. It would be
interesting to know how the costs shift around in practice and what are
the implications for integrity in billing.

--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.