Although lisp is powerful, but I don't like parenthesis without limits.

In Haskell, I can use indentations instead of numerous brackets.

It can save our eyes and reduce efforts to deal with parenthesis by checking alignment.

Addon:

I thought I was misleading. What I mean is to mix both parenthesis and identations. I have a new idea which replaces (a b c) in a line with | a b c , so that

(defun abs2 (x) (cond ((> x 0) x) (t (- 0 x))))

could be

defun abs2 (x)
  cond 
    | (> x 0) x
    | t  (- 0 x)

In this case, s-expressions are preserved as more clear view, so I think whether s-expressions or macros are good or not is not a problem here.

Addon 2:

Personally, I did not have any difficult with lisp code and not going to abolish parenthesis. I just found when I use indentations to sort code, parenthesis seems unnecessary for parsing lisp, something like this ...)))))) can also be reduced. If so, we can work by using a simpler editor without any script extension, we get more choices, that's why I'm asking.

Thanks to Zak for pointing out google, I found:

http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-49/srfi-49.html

As a example:

define (fac x)
  if (= x 0) 1
    * x
      fac (- x 1)

I'd like to know why lispers don't like this. Thanks for reply.

Addon 3:

Thanks to Denommus and tangus:

http://readable.sourceforge.net/

Honestly, No matter how those downvotes think, I really like this.

Does anybody else sometimes feel like Lisp's syntax is almost too boring?

Like, the syntax definitely has advantages. I have my Emacs (+evil) configured so I can cut any S-expression I want with d-; And thanks to that, I can move around a long 'case' expression in only 3 keystrokes. It's much more tedious in lots of other languages.

But I also look at some other languages, like Ruby with its meta-programming abilities, and I can only think to myself: Wow! It looks so cool! So joyful! So much sugar! Then I turn around to my Scheme codebase, and it feels like a wave of sadness just hit me (ok, maybe not!)

In my case, I think it has to do with the fact that Lisp code doesn't read much like English (I think we agree). It doesn't try to. Ashamedly, I believe I'm somewhat of a sucker for literate programming, likely more than the proper, healthy amount.

As a side note, I always thought the best way to make Scheme more natural-like, fun, and possibly more readable is to have the option of specifying all arguments with explicit keywords. For example, (move :the book :to bookshelf) instead of (move book bookshelf). Or (find :needle f :in ls), instead of (find f ls). Maybe a system similar to Smalltalk? Don't know. I have a feeling nobody's gonna agree to this :S

What do you think? Does Lisp's syntax sometimes get too boring?

One computer scientist once said that Lisp and Prolog are to archaeologists what Latin and ancient Greek are. In the 1980s, Lisp or Prolog was an essential subject in universities. Scheme was used for SICP at MIT.

However, they are rarely used in the real world of programming, where practical languages such as Python and Java are preferred. Programming languages come and go like fads, and many will be born and die.

If you ask ChatGPT, it can translate from Lisp into many other computer languages. It has even translated the simple Takeuchi function into Python.

Rather than trying to learn a trendy language, it may be more beneficial to learn classical Lisp, as it provides a strong foundation for understanding programming concepts. Humans do not need to learn many programming languages since ChatGPT can translate them into practical languages.

What do you think?

Serious question: why don't Lisp programmers just use Prolog? Prolog is just Lisp plus awesome extra stuff. I mean I program in Python at work lol but if I had a choice I would totally program Prolog all day and night

The problems of comp.lang.lisp have made their way to /r/lisp! The one and only activity of /u/AnotherLisper is to post Clojure links to /r/lisp, and he doesn't respond to requests to stop.

Fortunately this subreddit can be moderated, where cll cannot. Will the moderators here please moderate, or otherwise add more moderators?

As long as you don't test it you are in a quantum state, the same as for the Schrödinger's cat. Your code is either buggy or is not.

Hence, bugs are in fact triggered by users.

I tried to solve some of the last Advent of Code enigmas with LispE, and I discovered a plethora of problems, which I didn't think would erupt after so many years of tests.

sbcl-lisp : 0.7s

racket-scheme : 0.7s

chicken-scheme : 3s (optimized 0.17s)

ccl-lisp : 6s

kawa-scheme : 14s

abcl-lisp : 45s (compiled 6s)

edit: I have Autism and ADHD.

Today I completed an experiment that redefines what we understand as the "software lifecycle." Using Common Lisp, OpenCode, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP), I enabled an AI Agent to not only write code but also evolve its own binary architecture on the fly.

The Paradigm: From Construction to Evolution

In traditional development (C++, Python, Java), software is an inert object that is recreated from scratch with each execution. In my IOE-V3 system, software is an organism with Image Persistence.

Injection via MCP: The LLM (Agent), acting as an architect, injects logic directly into active RAM. There are no intermediate files; it's thought converted into execution.

Digital Immunity (LISA & IISCV): Every "mutation" is audited in real time by LISA (the immune system) and recorded by IISCV in a forensic graph. It's industrial software that evolves under control, not in chaos.

Genetic Persistence: By executing a save-lisp-and-die command, the Agent captures the state of the universe. Upon waking, the ./ioe-dev binary no longer "learns" its new functions: they are already part of its core.

Why is this an industrial revolution?

In a conventional architecture, modifying a system involves: Edit -> Compile -> Reboot. In my Lisp Machine, the Agent simply "thinks" about the improvement, the system assimilates it, and it becomes "welded" to the binary without interruption. Knowledge becomes part of the logical hardware.

Current State: Level 1 Completed

We have validated the infrastructure. The resulting binary is simultaneously:

An IDE and an MCP Server.

A Forensic Security Auditor.

An AI that knows how to self-improve and "freeze" itself to persist.

We are witnessing the transition from software as a tool to software as an autonomous organism. The future is not written, it is cultivated in RAM.

https://github.com/gassechen/ioe-dev-test

https://github.com/quasi/cl-mcp-server

https://github.com/gassechen/iiscv

https://github.com/youngde811/Lisa