Hofstadter on Lisp (1983)

(gist.github.com)

372 points Eric_WVGG | 2 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.458s | source

Show context

AnimalMuppet ◴[16 Oct 24 15:21 UTC] No.41860160[source]▶

> Every computer language has arbitrary features, and most languages are in fact overloaded with them. A few, however, such as Lisp and Algol, are built around a kernel that seems as natural as a branch of mathematics.

Algol? The kernel of Algol seems as natural as a branch of mathematics? Can anyone who has used Algol give their opinion of this statement?

replies(6): >>41860537 #>>41861307 #>>41863968 #>>41863999 #>>41865080 #>>41865751 #

1. retrac ◴[16 Oct 24 21:26 UTC] No.41863999[source]▶

>>41860160 #

C is basically Algol with curly braces and pointers. The sentiment expressed there is probably equally applicable to C, or maybe Pascal. Those are often held up today as a minimal example in contrast to Lisp. There is a sort of sparse, warty elegance to the family. Blocks, arrays, if/then, assignment, while loops. What more could you need?

replies(1): >>41865392 #

2. AnimalMuppet ◴[17 Oct 24 00:53 UTC] No.41865392[source]▶

>>41863999 (TP) #

I've used both C and Pascal. The simplicity of C comes through to me (less so Pascal - the verbosity gets in the way). I never thought of it as "as natural as a branch of mathematics", though.

I mean... I guess you could think of it as having its own set of self-consistent axioms, and from them you can build things. It's a lot larger set of axioms than most branches of mathematics, though.

I guess, if Hofstadter meant the same level of naturalness, well, yes, C did feel pretty natural to me, so... maybe?

↑