Talk:S-expression
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Could somebody add an example please? --HJH What does the S stand for? What's this got do with SGML/XML?
- Like XML, this is a format for data storage. Among those who know about it it's generally considered to be much better (many claim that it's easier to write your own s-expression parser than learn to use a pre-made XML parser). It is unfortunate that crappy standards win over nice technologies. -- Lament
I totally agree... with all of it... What does the S stand for? and an example or 2 would have been useful...
The link to "Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions" is broken.
--Furrykef 07:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] S: symbolic
S stands for "symbolic" in S-expressions. A more detailed treatment is there at: http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/sexp.html
[edit] The new pov/or/vanity section
"Readability as a programming notation". There are so many things wrong with it, I don't know where to begin.
- "However, many find raw S-expressions difficult to read."
Citation needed as they say... I say most people can read properly indended sexps with little guidance. Which can't be said about syntax-heavy languages like C++ or Ruby.
- "Even Paul Graham, an advocate of Lisp, admits that he finds the lack of built-in infix notation to be a significant drawback."
Who cares whether it's built in or not. There are so many infix libraries floating around.
- "In addition, typical programs written with S-expressions include many more parentheses than their equivalents in other notations, which most developers find much more difficult to read."
Yes, the other notations also have curly braces, semi-colons and other symbol-soup to add to the count. Which makes them easier to read, I guess...
- "Nearly all languages developed after Scheme do not use S-expressions as a surface notation."
Ever heard of Common Lisp?
- "In 2006, David A. Wheeler described sweet-expressions"
Now we get to the whole point of this section: self-promotion. Well, unfortunately for Mr. Wheeler, it isn't a new idea (it gets reinvented every 2 years or so), it isn't a good idea (see comp.lang.lisp threads on the topic) and, basically no one uses it. One has to wonder why people didn't switch to this obviously superior notation. Perhaps it isn't so superior after all... Grue 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
