Lisp Syntax: (func arg arg) vs func(arg arg)

Would changing Lisp's syntax as described in the thread title (with no further modifications, arithmetic operators are still prefix, etc) result in any loss in expressibility, generality, or have any other significantly negative consequences?

I'm trying to imagine a ``Trojan Lisp'' for warming up programmers proficient in other languages to the concepts unique to the Lisps. It seems like an insignificant difference (I'm fine with either syntax), but I really think it would go a long ways toward making the language more palatable to people that aren't already Lisp programmers.

Yes. Expressions are lists, and the first element is a procedure. Imagine generating code for your syntax, it wouldn't be as consistent.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EmExpressions
http://readable.sourceforge.net/

nig

And lose homoiconicity? No.

Internal representation is the same.

Plain text representation isn't, ``faggot''.

seems ok to me except for representing the empy list, and lists where the first element is a list.


(defvar k '())

(let ((a 1)
      (b 2))
  (+ a b))

It seems like an insignificant difference
No it's not
I'm fine with either syntax
The former is more like ``abstract syntax tree'' than ``syntax''.
People tried something similar to the latter once, it was called ``M-expression''.

>>9
AND IT WAS SHIT

>>7
>implying cons cells are plaintext
IHNBT, ``farget''

You could easily double the number of Lisp programmers by making just one runtime that isn't unmitigated shit.

>>11
>le implying le /g/ face is not le reddit meme
>le 2013
le lel, /g/roski, truly /e/gin leee lXDDD

>>13                                   `
>
>

.>
>
>
>
.
>>
>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>
....
>>
..
>>>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>