When people encounter Lisp syntax for the first time

Where does that notation work?

In c style languages, Java, c++, rust, etc.

Lisp uses it, with the fun extra part that operators are just normal functions - so instead of foo(bar) you get (foo bar), or for operators 1+1+2 becomes (+ 1 1 2). It’s a really fun language even just for being different than most, I def recommend playing around with it if you’re looking for something new.

What about the M-expression version (f[x])?

surely you mean Algol style languages?

I did, but I couldn’t remember it. so thanks!

The fun part comes from using it without syntax highlighting, so you can regularly play „find the missing paranthesis“.

My lisp days were back in my “IDEs are bloat” phase so that’s the only way I ever interacted with it lmao

(f x) works this way in Lisp - as in the joke - and Lisp descendants like Scheme. And then there’s Haskell which takes the whole thing a step further still.

Also Perl, because Larry thought it would be fun(ctional). The external parentheses are technically optional in this case, but won’t break anything if included. Regular f(x) syntax is also supported there. (You could probably remake this meme with Python and Perl in first and second panels tbh.)

And I know of at least one dialect of BASIC that allowed subroutine calls to lack their parentheses, so the same external parentheses thing would apply if that subroutine was a function.

AFAIK, the only language that ever implemented M-expressions was Logo.

WDYM “the 1st time”?

The most interesting part about Lisp is homoiconicity:

(+ 1 1 2) is literally a list with symbol “+” and 3 numbers.

Which allows to build the most powerful macro possible, manipulating code (with data as a tree-like structures) and changing it into whatever else at compile time.

Now if only there was any good use for macros, this would be the best language

Does that make Lisp a language with significant white space?

Threading is a great case for a macro.

(-> x (* 2) (/ 3) (- 1))

Is the same as (- (/ (* x 2) 3) 1)

And then there’s Haskell which takes the whole thing a step further still.

Wait, what works in Haskell that doesn’t in Lisp, exactly? Are the spaces not just function composition?

Sure it’s not like it has no uses, but it’s something languages have built-in as syntax sugar or operators, and you rarely need to built your own macro for anything.

Editing lisp with ed is the best way to learn it.

Have you ever used a domain specific language? My intuition says, “no.”

of at least one dialect of BASIC that allowed subroutine calls to lack their parentheses

Did sub calls normally have parentheses in BASIC?

Yes. Most early BASICs even required that any reference to a function name, in definition or calling, be preceded by an FN keyword as well as the parentheses.

QBASIC, Visual BASIC and the related dialects of BASIC found in MS Office and LibreOffice all have slightly better syntax for defining and calling functions than the older BASICs, but they all still require parentheses on their subroutine parameter lists too.

At best, you might be able to call a subroutine by name with no empty parentheses after it, but as soon as you need parameters, you’ll need parentheses around them.

But like I say, there was at least one rare BASIC that didn’t need them, so I’m assuming there might have been others that I’m not aware of.